14 thoughts on “Week 12 – New Media Collectivities (T1)”
Kaede Lim
Rheingold takes a romantic perspective in attempting to convey the ‘fellow-feeling’ and ‘collective effervescence one finds in an internet community that is difficult to forge in the real world. Weber’s theory of charismatic authority states that it is irrational, a kind of interaction that no longer characterizes society. Rheingold’s seems to imply that the internet was beginning to allow for the kind of collective feeling and community to emerge once again, that we can find and forge strong moral bonds online. Yet community membership in the past was much more defined, much clearer to identify. On the internet, the lines are blurred and it becomes difficult to distinguish who’s in and who’s not. Also because the physical body is not seen on the intangible online platform, it would be much easier to be comfortable and also assume the membership of others’ in a certain community without much judgement or prejudice. In this sense, it is lacking the kind of sincerity that old communities had. Although Rheingold emphasises on the strength of their bonds, adding credibility by writing on their picnic outings and meet ups, it is a much different kind of collectivism and connectivity.
To complement this argument, Danah Boyd talks about impression management online and the ability to curate the things to display on one’s online profile. Although it does provide the comfort and freedom of customisation, a refreshing idea compared to increasingly homogenised societies, it takes away a sense of sincerity and credibility. It is necessary now for the generation to be constantly weary of information put online.
I thought Clive Thompson’s article was very striking, in the truth that online social media does in fact create a kind of proprioception, in the new sensitivity (the sixth sense) to surrounding people and events without physically being close to them.
M Priyanka Nair
Rheingold writes about how the online community was, in the time he wrote, a truly new form of community where people could connect strongly despite being in completely different physical locations. Though his view is highly romanticized, since cyberbullying has come about precisely because of these online communities, and slightly non-relatable to others in the time of its release because of how the online community at that time was mostly made up of elites anyway, there are still points he made that are highly relevant to today’s online community, though it probably was not his foresight that allowed him to think of them. A prime example of today’s online community having the strong connections as in Rheingold’s experience is that of online fan bases, especially of those on Tumblr. Though social network sites are still frowned upon by some members of the older generations and even some of today’s tech-saavy kids, they still hold strong communal bonds between members, and these are the people about whom Boyd explains the gravitation to social networking sites in her article. This is because the virtual world allows people to find each other based on similar interests, which is an instant connector regardless of age, gender, race, or any other biological, personality and location traits. Though people know that online connections are not as secure as real relationships seem to be, many still draw on the comfort in knowing there are others “out there” who think like them and like what they like. This reliance on technological connections and people you don’t and will probably never know in real life is a very unique phenomenon to our century, but is also slightly poignant in that it exposes how real-life relationships are not sufficient or emotionally rewarding enough.
Lucy Molloy
Key themes for this week were:
Virtual vs Material spheres
Reality vs Simulation
Online vs in-person interaction
Physical vs Immaterial
For Rheingold:
His writing focuses on a certain type of connectivity that is possible:
Virtual connections were based on what was material and inter-personal relationships that transcend the virtual sphere. Relations in the virtual sphere and how these relations are sensorial relations because they become a part of you. He suggests that new media is such a part of everyday life that it is sensorial
Naturalisation of social media interaction: Just as you don’t think about your arm, you just use it, you don’t think about Facebook or Email.
Post enlightenment: society that has a Historical impetuous that Sociologists defer to.
1980s:
RG: The ulterior motives of those using the internet
Was conscious of the corporate control of the internet
1980s virtual version of Habermas’
Symbolic, cultural capital that could function transnationally
The internet during the 1980s was accessed by the professionals.
Internet was not a base level place in which to interact.
Boyd’s later writings are more critical of the limitations of RG’s argument
Much more reflexive
Doesn’t view the public as a homogenous group
They are a stratified group
Technology has evolved to an extent that everyone is participating
Key question: How much access do you have to the internet?
Everyone is disciplining each other and the prison guard is watching everyone. So then people start to self regulate
Crime
Certain crimes such as: Transnational bank fraud do not fall under state specific jurisdiction. Therefore it is difficult and in some cases impossible to legislate in a borderless environment.
Offshore crime
Borders and regulation
Finance & movement of peoples and goods, revolution
There are implications to our virtual and paper traces and these are all used by companies to market and lobby people.
The internet has revolutionised the traffic of transactions, and speeded them up. But also reduced the amount of care and attribution that individuals take when doing these transactions.
As the readings have demonstrated there are clear tensions between virtual and physical realities. Navigating these spaces and flows will change over time.
Undoubtedly online mediation requires greater investment and legislation.
Tham E-lyn
Rheingold describes the humanitarian nature of the Internet, something that many often take for granted.
He describes how with the help of an online forum, he was able to obtain any information any time he wanted. He describes this as an ‘immense sense of security’, especially since this information was given out by people who knew what they were talking about. When he asked medical questions, the responses he got were from parents, nurses, doctors, midwives – all who had some experience with what he’s talking about.
The Internet serves as a source of solace or escapism, an avenue where one can release all his pent-up frustration that he otherwise would not be able to voice out. These ‘rants’ are met with encouragement, affirmation, giving the individual a sense of warmth in knowing that he is not alone.
Yet, many often underestimate the terrifying degree as to which the online world can translate to the real world – in Rheingold’s words, “nobody mistakes virtual life for real life, even though it has an emotional reality for must of us. Words on a screen can hurt people. Although online conversation might have the ephemeral and informal feeling of a telephone conversation, it has the reach and permanence of a publication.”
Rheingold talks about how virtual communities create opportunity to hold discussions and foster bonds, both which is gradually disappearing in the real physical world. It is the lack of social bonds within the physical environment that drives people to seek intimacy online. However it seems to me that it is precisely Internet technology that divert people from spending time with people around them and spending it on the Internet. Something mentioned in class today seems to fit with this, that is the idea of enframing? How we exploit resources to come up with Internet technology and in return, we are enframed by technology that cause us to behave in a particular manner. Just something I suddenly thought of linking to and I have no idea whether I even make sense or not.
Boyd talks about the scale in which people present themselves to others, comparing pre-Internet ways of being limited by physics, to on the Internet whereby they have to present to the potential invisible audience and what they would choose to present might differ from how they would offline.
Thompson talks about Twitter and how it is not narcissistic and is instead about sharing and finding out more about the ongoing events in the lives of people around us. I would agree to this and say that we even provide too much information. Twitter allows people to post every little thing that happens, so my friends would be able to know that I “fell asleep during lecture and woke up to see that my prof caught me sleeping” when in normal conversations with my friends I would not particular mention that information.
Rachel Ng
Rheingold brings forth the idea that society is fundamentally different from community, namely in the kinds of bonds that exist are different. Communal bonds are pre-modern and is rooted in membership, which indicates certain requirements and initiation. As society modernises and progresses, human interaction changes and the idea of a community changes along with that. In the virtual community, feelings and discussion are two of Rheingold’s ideals. Rheingold says that modern society does not give us the opportunity to discuss and feel, but the virtual sphere gives us a platform to do so. This allows us to bond with one another, and the erosion of traditional communal bonds. It is a chilling realisation that the virtual space allows for greater intimacy as compared to physical reality.
Thompson brings a different point of view of how media has changed society in modern age. He links it to the theory of proprioception, meaning a feeling of knowing where your limbs are. For Rheingold, media provides feeling and discussion but to Thompson, media gives us something like a sixth sense. Twitter allows us to follow people and virtually get a sense of what they are doing even though we might not be with them. This is in a way something like proprioception and creates a new form of communality in society.
Tan Yuan Ting
In the “Why Youth Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life”, Boyd conducted an ethnography to observe sociall networks sites and their implications for youth identities. She argues that social network sites are a type of networked public that has four principles, persistence, searachbility, exact copyability and invisible audiences.
She mentions that people online are now profiles, given a degree of master and control in shaping the ways others perceive them. It is not as possible in reality as it is online.
An interesting aspect of the reading is the privacy in public. it is slightly ironic in the sense that one seeks privacy on a public space. Given that a space is public, where people can access data, information, and profiles easily, how does one expect to obtain privacy there? In this case, she refers to how teenagers use the online space for privacy, to keep their thoughts and doings, etc, away from their parents. Setting up password locks and keeing the blogs private becomes a way of mantaining privacy in a public space. But realistically speaking, there is no privacy online. Someone is always watching.
Yeow xinyin christy
Rheingold discusses how communities have emerged as a collection of people gathered face-to-face into an online community such as WELLS where “communities not of common location, but of common interest”. He illustrated the benefits of such communities and the large amount of support and resources from its members. He gives the example of how the WELL community gave him instructions to help his child when she was bitten by a tick, instead of contacting the hospital. The WELL members met eventually and he went on about how some was harsh online but nice in person. Online communities which are often linked through interests allow people to meet individuals who share the same interest that we otherwise do not have the ability to do so. The “third place” was also mentioned where it is a neutral ground and open around the clock. However, he ends off with the negative aspects. Words typed online can be equally hurtful and that the words are permanent so members should be careful of what they say.
Boyd describes the idea of social networking sites as mediated public spaces which have four properties. (1) persistence, (2)searchability, (3) replicability and (4) invisible audiences. Boyd goes onto explain how teens utilize social networks to help them form identities both online and off. Online profiles are easier to control but misinterpretations are more likely. By use of structural tactics such as “mirror networks” and setting their profile to “private”, teens try to make it harder for their parents to access their profiles. She goes on to argue that there are real consequences for these teens when others try to locate participants and project the context in which they relate to the individual offline into the online space. MySpace provides a solution to the structural and social barriers such as laws and parents that seek to prevent teens in engaging in public life.
Thompson’s article gives us an insight onto how social media such as Twitter creates a social sixth sense. As a tool for reporting real time location and activities to friends, Twitter enables us to know what our friends have been doing and how they are feeling even after not meeting them for some time.
rebecca quek
This week’s readings focus on the formation of community in the times of new media. Rheingold shares his experiences navigating WELL, and how online relations translate into offline spaces. In this sense, it is interesting as he seems to be highlighting how individuals are able to make real what Benedict Anderson calls “imagined communities”. Thompson actually seems to highlight how real, rather than imagined, these communities are, and these ties are only strengthened through the face-to-face meeting of individuals. boyd on the other hand, highlights how individuals make use of social media sites online to strengthen offline relationships, as well as show how social media sites are used by youngsters to accumulate their (sub)cultural capital, especially for fans of music through the usage of Myspace. Thompson too, highlights thsi point in talking about twitter, showing how offline relationships are strengthened online through reading of friends seemingly banal tweets. boyd also highlights how social media websites can be drawn along national and racial lines, with young Americans trending towards myspace, while Cyworld caters to South Korean and Chinese audiences. boyd also highlights the profile as a tool through which youths structure and build their identities online. However, unlike previous week’s readings, whereby individuals use virtual space to construct completely different identities from their offline ones, as these individuals who know each other in real life are connected on social media websites, there is a tension and need to align to their offline identities when constructing their online identities.
#GOH TIFFANY#
At the heart of all the readings this week, there is a sense that the advance in media, or more specifically, social networking sites today have inevitably altered our lifestyles, identities and cultures. We have become a lot more reliant on online communities and this for some, is more authentic than face to face interactions.
For Rheingold, he describes how CMC continues to change our lives at three different levels. Firstly, our perceptions, thoughts and personalities are affected by the way we use the medium and the way it uses us. Secondly, CMC technology offers a platform for many-to-many interactions and finally, Rheingold references Marc Smith’s concept of three “collective goods”: social network capital, knowledge capital and communion- a social glue that binds WELL into a community. WELL is a computer conferencing system where the author discovered a virtual community which was ‘always awake’ while his ‘real’ friends were asleep. He describes WELL as a “third place”, a place where conversations take place and where it is used as a “major vehicle for the display and appreciation of human personality and individuality”. While critics highlight the downsides of a civilization that worships technology, Rheingold sings of its praises with 4 main examples from his experience with WELL. He details how the community was a pillar of support (emotionally and financially- through barn-raising) and information. The last example Rheingold gives is Blair’s addiction to Compconf Psychserv. Blair fed off WELL because of the attention it could give him. At the end of his life, Blair scribbled erased all his posts on WELL which drew a parallel with his cessation of existence in real life. The fact that the online community attended Blair’s real-life funeral and do meet up during parenting conferences suggest that online interactions on virtual communities are not as ephemeral as critics think. In fact, it has reached the “permanence of a publication”- authenticity in the online realm of WELL.
While Rheingold calls these online social networking spaces “third places”, Boyd calls for a broader discussion on “networked publics”. The 4 properties that distinguishes networked publics from unmediated publics is persistence, searchability, replicability and invisible audiences. Her article focuses on MySpace as a platform where teenagers, mostly, are able to connect with peers and celebrities. By customizing and managing one’s profile, the teenager writes him/herself into being and engages in a process of “impression management”. A concept coined by Erving Goffman, impression management is the ability to use contextual and social cues from the environment to understand what is appropriate behaviour. Online communities then are always engaging in identity performance and have conceptualized an imagined audience. The web, however, is like a
panopticon – as Rheingold suggests. There is the salient issue of privacy and for teens, this is especially problematic when lurking parents try to gain control over their childrens’ online lives as well. Teens counter this problem through deception and lockdown strategies. Social networking sites have complicated our lives and made public experessions- hyperpublic. With public life constantly changing, teens face the issue of navigating through networked publics with dexterity, given the problems of privacy and impression management.
Lee Cheong Khi
This week’s readings provide insights on how communities are formed through new media. It not only exemplifies social interactions but more importantly brought communities together. Rheingold describes how the virtual space was somewhere parents turned to for social support and information to various problems they have, especially as parents. Through the parenting conference, users who were once strangers became friends who seemed to know everything about each other, including their children. It is interesting because a certain sense of community is formed without the people actually meeting up. Moreover, the author recognizes the kind of fear about how virtual communities are threatening the existence of physical meet-ups. However, he provides another view as instead of diminishing the role of physical interactions, virtual communities comes alongside with these interactions and even increase the kind of social bonds people form. Moreover, he argues that new media allows for likeminded people with common interests to “get acquainted”. He also described his own experience on WELL where he knew more people, gained more knowledge, shared about his own lives as well as understand others’ lives which he never imagined he ever would.
Similar to Rheingold, Thompson feels that new media reveals a lot about people through the things they post online, and often are more than people actually think it would. He uses the example of Twitter, where a simple post by someone seemed “stupefyingly trivial”, but one would slowly get a sense how the other is like after reading a few of such posts. It seems somewhat like an unintended impact derived from the use of social media. To him, “you’re creating a shared understanding larger than yourself”, perhaps suggesting you’re revealing yourself more than you actually thought you would.
As for Boyd, she conducted ethnographies to understand how youths engage in social media sites, providing insights on “identity formation, status negotiation, and peer-to-peer sociality.” She explains how youths formed a community, often attempting to create an environment away from control and surveillance by their parents and caregivers. In so doing, they tried to create/present themselves online, constantly going through the process of impression management as they get a sense of what kind of behaviors are considered socially appropriate. She argues that the attempt to present themselves in a certain way is to garner support and approval from their peers., forming a certain sense of interactions online. Moreover, it is a place where they can be free to present themselves.
Frances Tan Wei Ting
According to Thompson, the accumulation of trivial or banal information from Twitter messages can lead to a form of societal proprioception, which gives a group of people a sense of self and coordinates the actions of conversations between the individuals of a group. The sense of addiction, the need to tweet and do it with friends, is what makes group understanding (on a somewhat subconscious level) via this media possible. Without such compulsion, the vast amounts of information would not be so easily available (even if it may not be advisable).
Rheingold speaks of the virtual community and “third places”. A sense of place can come from “where we live, where we work and where we gather for conviviality”. It is the third which helps form an informal public life that can allow communities to “come into being and continue to be held together” online. The features of third places include:
• Conversation as the primary activity
• Displays of appreciation of human personality and individuality
• Tend to be low profile places that are taken for granted
• Have a regular clientele and a (usually) playful mood
• Extends psychological comfort and support.
While initial contact on the Well’s Parenting Conference may be more like ramblings to a foreign, invisible audience, these may provide relief from a sense of isolation, especially when confronted with crises. The choice to meet up offline may come about, which later can lead to “rituals”. The individuals in the virtual community become connected, not through common location, but through common interests. The social interaction possibilities is not limited by CMC (computer-mediated communication), but increased by it. Individual networks can be pooled together, such that resources for dealing with crises become more available (speedier). The community “learns” together about the topic, that is also the address where the community gathers to online. The community may even be willing to pay to upgrade infrastructure so that smoother communication may continue to be held online between members. As with Thompson, the addiction possibility is real. However, the addiction to an online community is portrayed as perhaps a lesser evil among a variety of other addictions. Does it make sense to say that one is addicted to social interaction? When the boundaries of both online and offline interactions overlap, does it still make sense to view one as a lesser form of interaction, merely a “simulacrum of real passion and true commitment to one another”? The degree to which this interaction is real can be seen from the effects of the Scribble tool, that searches for posts and deletes them. This tool disrupts the fabric of recorded conversation. Since posts can be made in response to and provoking other responses, to remove them can leave holes in the flow of “conversation”. Such action can be regarded as antisocial (or even intellectual suicide online). Yet, since such interactions are online, they can gain the reach and permanence of publications, enabling the community and much of the recorded interactions to “withstand assaults” caused when an individual withdraws so completely from the interactions online.
Boyd mentions “networked publics”. To her, social network sites where there can be articulated expressions that can help identity formation, status negotiation and peer-to-peer sociality. Profiles are a form of individual or group home page, which offers a description of each member. SNSs are based on profiles, comments and friends, which differentiates them from other CMCs. There is customizability and varying degrees of privacy. Public is used by Boyd in its multiple meanings. The networked publics have a distinctly different architecture from other mediated and unmediated publics: persistence, searchability, replicability and invisible audiences. The article discusses practices on these spaces.
Khrisha Chatterji
This week, we read articles by Rheingold, Boyd and Thompson. All of whom wrote about new media being collectivities.
Rheingold touched on the early days of new media with a focus on The WELL which basically seems like a forum with lots of discussion topics. The WELL sort of works like a community because you get to know people, discuss about everything and anything under the sun, get help, etc. Though there are positives about such an online community, there are also chances of being flamed online and getting into arguments.
Boyd analyses the use of social networking sites like MySpace among teenagers and how teenagers do impression management. I think she is trying to put forth the similarities of the social situation online and offline and that adults should not react the way they do with regard to their children’s actions online as they are doing what they would do offline and this is part of the social fabric of society where teenagers learn what’s socially acceptable and what’s not, what’s valuable and what’s disdained, etc.
Thompson explains why Twitter is a collective and not something that seems pointless. He sees Twitter as a platform that allows a circle of friends to gather and update information about each other so that at least within this circle of friends, you know what is happening in each other’s lives even if you do not physically meet up.
New media is rapidly growing and more can be done on such sites with all the shares, likes, comments and what not. It brings us to the issue of the etiquette of using such sites which I think Rheingold and Boyd mentioned. There is a need to remind users that comments should not be so brutal and ruthless as emotions are involved. There is the issue of cleansing/censoring content on profiles to manage impressions, etc. How should people use such ‘networked publics’? There is a need to find a balance of doing what you want online and at the same time being careful of what you do online. However, balancing this is going to be problematic.
Annabel Su
This week’s readings explore the communities and networks that emerge within new media, as well as the implications such collectives have for social interactions amongst people of different age, class and racial groups.
Boyd asserts that public spheres in general are essential in individuals’ development as they are spaces in which norms are both created and reinforced. For teenagers, publics are especially important for they are socialized through trial and error. However, with the development of new media, mediated public spaces are formed, where the scale of the public is changed, due to persistence, replicability, invisible audiences and searchability and this is in stark contrast to unmediated spaces where the public is structurally defined and limited by physics and geography. For Boyd, the way teenagers perform, interpret and adjust in mediated public spaces or social networks like MySpace is in line with Goffman’s impression management and the larger process where people read from their environment to extrapolate and understand what is normal and appropriate behaviour. Boyd also asserts that teenagers would require self-reflexivity and self-monitoring to ensure they exhibit socially accepted behaviour in an unimaginably wide public sphere.
For Rheingold, computer mediated communications resulted in the creation of virtual communities that have the potential for individuals to amass greater socio-cultural, political, intellectual and commercial leverage. He argues that the social interactions and happenings in the digital sphere can be translated and manifested into changes within the material realm. He posits: “cyberspace is one of the informal public places where people can rebuild the aspects of community that were lost“ and this runs along the same ideals as Turkle who maintains that the virtual space allows for a reconceptualization of social reality or a psychosocial moratorium.
Thompson argues that social networks like Twitter allow for both a collective and a new kind of intimacy to be developed. “Twitter and other constant-contact media create social proprioception. They give a group of people a sense of itself, making possible weird, fascinating feats of coordination.” As such, people develop an understanding greater than themselves, and immerse themselves in a larger network of individuals that result in a more interconnected society.
Rheingold takes a romantic perspective in attempting to convey the ‘fellow-feeling’ and ‘collective effervescence one finds in an internet community that is difficult to forge in the real world. Weber’s theory of charismatic authority states that it is irrational, a kind of interaction that no longer characterizes society. Rheingold’s seems to imply that the internet was beginning to allow for the kind of collective feeling and community to emerge once again, that we can find and forge strong moral bonds online. Yet community membership in the past was much more defined, much clearer to identify. On the internet, the lines are blurred and it becomes difficult to distinguish who’s in and who’s not. Also because the physical body is not seen on the intangible online platform, it would be much easier to be comfortable and also assume the membership of others’ in a certain community without much judgement or prejudice. In this sense, it is lacking the kind of sincerity that old communities had. Although Rheingold emphasises on the strength of their bonds, adding credibility by writing on their picnic outings and meet ups, it is a much different kind of collectivism and connectivity.
To complement this argument, Danah Boyd talks about impression management online and the ability to curate the things to display on one’s online profile. Although it does provide the comfort and freedom of customisation, a refreshing idea compared to increasingly homogenised societies, it takes away a sense of sincerity and credibility. It is necessary now for the generation to be constantly weary of information put online.
I thought Clive Thompson’s article was very striking, in the truth that online social media does in fact create a kind of proprioception, in the new sensitivity (the sixth sense) to surrounding people and events without physically being close to them.
Rheingold writes about how the online community was, in the time he wrote, a truly new form of community where people could connect strongly despite being in completely different physical locations. Though his view is highly romanticized, since cyberbullying has come about precisely because of these online communities, and slightly non-relatable to others in the time of its release because of how the online community at that time was mostly made up of elites anyway, there are still points he made that are highly relevant to today’s online community, though it probably was not his foresight that allowed him to think of them. A prime example of today’s online community having the strong connections as in Rheingold’s experience is that of online fan bases, especially of those on Tumblr. Though social network sites are still frowned upon by some members of the older generations and even some of today’s tech-saavy kids, they still hold strong communal bonds between members, and these are the people about whom Boyd explains the gravitation to social networking sites in her article. This is because the virtual world allows people to find each other based on similar interests, which is an instant connector regardless of age, gender, race, or any other biological, personality and location traits. Though people know that online connections are not as secure as real relationships seem to be, many still draw on the comfort in knowing there are others “out there” who think like them and like what they like. This reliance on technological connections and people you don’t and will probably never know in real life is a very unique phenomenon to our century, but is also slightly poignant in that it exposes how real-life relationships are not sufficient or emotionally rewarding enough.
Key themes for this week were:
Virtual vs Material spheres
Reality vs Simulation
Online vs in-person interaction
Physical vs Immaterial
For Rheingold:
His writing focuses on a certain type of connectivity that is possible:
Virtual connections were based on what was material and inter-personal relationships that transcend the virtual sphere. Relations in the virtual sphere and how these relations are sensorial relations because they become a part of you. He suggests that new media is such a part of everyday life that it is sensorial
Naturalisation of social media interaction: Just as you don’t think about your arm, you just use it, you don’t think about Facebook or Email.
Post enlightenment: society that has a Historical impetuous that Sociologists defer to.
1980s:
RG: The ulterior motives of those using the internet
Was conscious of the corporate control of the internet
1980s virtual version of Habermas’
Symbolic, cultural capital that could function transnationally
The internet during the 1980s was accessed by the professionals.
Internet was not a base level place in which to interact.
Boyd’s later writings are more critical of the limitations of RG’s argument
Much more reflexive
Doesn’t view the public as a homogenous group
They are a stratified group
Technology has evolved to an extent that everyone is participating
Key question: How much access do you have to the internet?
Everyone is disciplining each other and the prison guard is watching everyone. So then people start to self regulate
For example: Hacktivism
2013: Anonymous, hacked into Singaporean government’s ministry of information
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-24862839
Crime
Certain crimes such as: Transnational bank fraud do not fall under state specific jurisdiction. Therefore it is difficult and in some cases impossible to legislate in a borderless environment.
Offshore crime
Borders and regulation
Finance & movement of peoples and goods, revolution
There are implications to our virtual and paper traces and these are all used by companies to market and lobby people.
The internet has revolutionised the traffic of transactions, and speeded them up. But also reduced the amount of care and attribution that individuals take when doing these transactions.
As the readings have demonstrated there are clear tensions between virtual and physical realities. Navigating these spaces and flows will change over time.
Undoubtedly online mediation requires greater investment and legislation.
Rheingold describes the humanitarian nature of the Internet, something that many often take for granted.
He describes how with the help of an online forum, he was able to obtain any information any time he wanted. He describes this as an ‘immense sense of security’, especially since this information was given out by people who knew what they were talking about. When he asked medical questions, the responses he got were from parents, nurses, doctors, midwives – all who had some experience with what he’s talking about.
The Internet serves as a source of solace or escapism, an avenue where one can release all his pent-up frustration that he otherwise would not be able to voice out. These ‘rants’ are met with encouragement, affirmation, giving the individual a sense of warmth in knowing that he is not alone.
Yet, many often underestimate the terrifying degree as to which the online world can translate to the real world – in Rheingold’s words, “nobody mistakes virtual life for real life, even though it has an emotional reality for must of us. Words on a screen can hurt people. Although online conversation might have the ephemeral and informal feeling of a telephone conversation, it has the reach and permanence of a publication.”
This reminded me how the Miss Singapore Finalist mocked a man who had holes in his shirt by posting his picture up on Facebook. (http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/singaporeseen/this-urban-jungle/miss-universe-spore-finalist-pokes-fun-of-man-with-holes-in-his-shirt-daughter). I feel it might not be too presumptuous to term this act a malicious form of cyberbullying. The poor man had done nothing to the Miss Singapore Finalist, but yet just because he was wearing a shirt that was not in adherence to the social norm of tidiness, he was unknowingly singled out and made a laughing stock. This man was so shamed by it that he even wanted to quit his job. (http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/singaporeseen/this-urban-jungle/uncle-shamed-by-miss-singapore-finalist-wants-to-quit-job-at-store-after-over-28) This is a pertinent example of how a seemingly harmless comment made online could indeed translate to matters of gravity in the real world. We should be careful of what we say or post online, as whatever we say can be easily taken out of context, and viewed by friends and strangers alike.
Rheingold talks about how virtual communities create opportunity to hold discussions and foster bonds, both which is gradually disappearing in the real physical world. It is the lack of social bonds within the physical environment that drives people to seek intimacy online. However it seems to me that it is precisely Internet technology that divert people from spending time with people around them and spending it on the Internet. Something mentioned in class today seems to fit with this, that is the idea of enframing? How we exploit resources to come up with Internet technology and in return, we are enframed by technology that cause us to behave in a particular manner. Just something I suddenly thought of linking to and I have no idea whether I even make sense or not.
Boyd talks about the scale in which people present themselves to others, comparing pre-Internet ways of being limited by physics, to on the Internet whereby they have to present to the potential invisible audience and what they would choose to present might differ from how they would offline.
Thompson talks about Twitter and how it is not narcissistic and is instead about sharing and finding out more about the ongoing events in the lives of people around us. I would agree to this and say that we even provide too much information. Twitter allows people to post every little thing that happens, so my friends would be able to know that I “fell asleep during lecture and woke up to see that my prof caught me sleeping” when in normal conversations with my friends I would not particular mention that information.
Rheingold brings forth the idea that society is fundamentally different from community, namely in the kinds of bonds that exist are different. Communal bonds are pre-modern and is rooted in membership, which indicates certain requirements and initiation. As society modernises and progresses, human interaction changes and the idea of a community changes along with that. In the virtual community, feelings and discussion are two of Rheingold’s ideals. Rheingold says that modern society does not give us the opportunity to discuss and feel, but the virtual sphere gives us a platform to do so. This allows us to bond with one another, and the erosion of traditional communal bonds. It is a chilling realisation that the virtual space allows for greater intimacy as compared to physical reality.
Thompson brings a different point of view of how media has changed society in modern age. He links it to the theory of proprioception, meaning a feeling of knowing where your limbs are. For Rheingold, media provides feeling and discussion but to Thompson, media gives us something like a sixth sense. Twitter allows us to follow people and virtually get a sense of what they are doing even though we might not be with them. This is in a way something like proprioception and creates a new form of communality in society.
In the “Why Youth Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life”, Boyd conducted an ethnography to observe sociall networks sites and their implications for youth identities. She argues that social network sites are a type of networked public that has four principles, persistence, searachbility, exact copyability and invisible audiences.
She mentions that people online are now profiles, given a degree of master and control in shaping the ways others perceive them. It is not as possible in reality as it is online.
An interesting aspect of the reading is the privacy in public. it is slightly ironic in the sense that one seeks privacy on a public space. Given that a space is public, where people can access data, information, and profiles easily, how does one expect to obtain privacy there? In this case, she refers to how teenagers use the online space for privacy, to keep their thoughts and doings, etc, away from their parents. Setting up password locks and keeing the blogs private becomes a way of mantaining privacy in a public space. But realistically speaking, there is no privacy online. Someone is always watching.
Rheingold discusses how communities have emerged as a collection of people gathered face-to-face into an online community such as WELLS where “communities not of common location, but of common interest”. He illustrated the benefits of such communities and the large amount of support and resources from its members. He gives the example of how the WELL community gave him instructions to help his child when she was bitten by a tick, instead of contacting the hospital. The WELL members met eventually and he went on about how some was harsh online but nice in person. Online communities which are often linked through interests allow people to meet individuals who share the same interest that we otherwise do not have the ability to do so. The “third place” was also mentioned where it is a neutral ground and open around the clock. However, he ends off with the negative aspects. Words typed online can be equally hurtful and that the words are permanent so members should be careful of what they say.
Boyd describes the idea of social networking sites as mediated public spaces which have four properties. (1) persistence, (2)searchability, (3) replicability and (4) invisible audiences. Boyd goes onto explain how teens utilize social networks to help them form identities both online and off. Online profiles are easier to control but misinterpretations are more likely. By use of structural tactics such as “mirror networks” and setting their profile to “private”, teens try to make it harder for their parents to access their profiles. She goes on to argue that there are real consequences for these teens when others try to locate participants and project the context in which they relate to the individual offline into the online space. MySpace provides a solution to the structural and social barriers such as laws and parents that seek to prevent teens in engaging in public life.
Thompson’s article gives us an insight onto how social media such as Twitter creates a social sixth sense. As a tool for reporting real time location and activities to friends, Twitter enables us to know what our friends have been doing and how they are feeling even after not meeting them for some time.
This week’s readings focus on the formation of community in the times of new media. Rheingold shares his experiences navigating WELL, and how online relations translate into offline spaces. In this sense, it is interesting as he seems to be highlighting how individuals are able to make real what Benedict Anderson calls “imagined communities”. Thompson actually seems to highlight how real, rather than imagined, these communities are, and these ties are only strengthened through the face-to-face meeting of individuals. boyd on the other hand, highlights how individuals make use of social media sites online to strengthen offline relationships, as well as show how social media sites are used by youngsters to accumulate their (sub)cultural capital, especially for fans of music through the usage of Myspace. Thompson too, highlights thsi point in talking about twitter, showing how offline relationships are strengthened online through reading of friends seemingly banal tweets. boyd also highlights how social media websites can be drawn along national and racial lines, with young Americans trending towards myspace, while Cyworld caters to South Korean and Chinese audiences. boyd also highlights the profile as a tool through which youths structure and build their identities online. However, unlike previous week’s readings, whereby individuals use virtual space to construct completely different identities from their offline ones, as these individuals who know each other in real life are connected on social media websites, there is a tension and need to align to their offline identities when constructing their online identities.
At the heart of all the readings this week, there is a sense that the advance in media, or more specifically, social networking sites today have inevitably altered our lifestyles, identities and cultures. We have become a lot more reliant on online communities and this for some, is more authentic than face to face interactions.
For Rheingold, he describes how CMC continues to change our lives at three different levels. Firstly, our perceptions, thoughts and personalities are affected by the way we use the medium and the way it uses us. Secondly, CMC technology offers a platform for many-to-many interactions and finally, Rheingold references Marc Smith’s concept of three “collective goods”: social network capital, knowledge capital and communion- a social glue that binds WELL into a community. WELL is a computer conferencing system where the author discovered a virtual community which was ‘always awake’ while his ‘real’ friends were asleep. He describes WELL as a “third place”, a place where conversations take place and where it is used as a “major vehicle for the display and appreciation of human personality and individuality”. While critics highlight the downsides of a civilization that worships technology, Rheingold sings of its praises with 4 main examples from his experience with WELL. He details how the community was a pillar of support (emotionally and financially- through barn-raising) and information. The last example Rheingold gives is Blair’s addiction to Compconf Psychserv. Blair fed off WELL because of the attention it could give him. At the end of his life, Blair scribbled erased all his posts on WELL which drew a parallel with his cessation of existence in real life. The fact that the online community attended Blair’s real-life funeral and do meet up during parenting conferences suggest that online interactions on virtual communities are not as ephemeral as critics think. In fact, it has reached the “permanence of a publication”- authenticity in the online realm of WELL.
While Rheingold calls these online social networking spaces “third places”, Boyd calls for a broader discussion on “networked publics”. The 4 properties that distinguishes networked publics from unmediated publics is persistence, searchability, replicability and invisible audiences. Her article focuses on MySpace as a platform where teenagers, mostly, are able to connect with peers and celebrities. By customizing and managing one’s profile, the teenager writes him/herself into being and engages in a process of “impression management”. A concept coined by Erving Goffman, impression management is the ability to use contextual and social cues from the environment to understand what is appropriate behaviour. Online communities then are always engaging in identity performance and have conceptualized an imagined audience. The web, however, is like a
panopticon – as Rheingold suggests. There is the salient issue of privacy and for teens, this is especially problematic when lurking parents try to gain control over their childrens’ online lives as well. Teens counter this problem through deception and lockdown strategies. Social networking sites have complicated our lives and made public experessions- hyperpublic. With public life constantly changing, teens face the issue of navigating through networked publics with dexterity, given the problems of privacy and impression management.
This week’s readings provide insights on how communities are formed through new media. It not only exemplifies social interactions but more importantly brought communities together. Rheingold describes how the virtual space was somewhere parents turned to for social support and information to various problems they have, especially as parents. Through the parenting conference, users who were once strangers became friends who seemed to know everything about each other, including their children. It is interesting because a certain sense of community is formed without the people actually meeting up. Moreover, the author recognizes the kind of fear about how virtual communities are threatening the existence of physical meet-ups. However, he provides another view as instead of diminishing the role of physical interactions, virtual communities comes alongside with these interactions and even increase the kind of social bonds people form. Moreover, he argues that new media allows for likeminded people with common interests to “get acquainted”. He also described his own experience on WELL where he knew more people, gained more knowledge, shared about his own lives as well as understand others’ lives which he never imagined he ever would.
Similar to Rheingold, Thompson feels that new media reveals a lot about people through the things they post online, and often are more than people actually think it would. He uses the example of Twitter, where a simple post by someone seemed “stupefyingly trivial”, but one would slowly get a sense how the other is like after reading a few of such posts. It seems somewhat like an unintended impact derived from the use of social media. To him, “you’re creating a shared understanding larger than yourself”, perhaps suggesting you’re revealing yourself more than you actually thought you would.
As for Boyd, she conducted ethnographies to understand how youths engage in social media sites, providing insights on “identity formation, status negotiation, and peer-to-peer sociality.” She explains how youths formed a community, often attempting to create an environment away from control and surveillance by their parents and caregivers. In so doing, they tried to create/present themselves online, constantly going through the process of impression management as they get a sense of what kind of behaviors are considered socially appropriate. She argues that the attempt to present themselves in a certain way is to garner support and approval from their peers., forming a certain sense of interactions online. Moreover, it is a place where they can be free to present themselves.
According to Thompson, the accumulation of trivial or banal information from Twitter messages can lead to a form of societal proprioception, which gives a group of people a sense of self and coordinates the actions of conversations between the individuals of a group. The sense of addiction, the need to tweet and do it with friends, is what makes group understanding (on a somewhat subconscious level) via this media possible. Without such compulsion, the vast amounts of information would not be so easily available (even if it may not be advisable).
Rheingold speaks of the virtual community and “third places”. A sense of place can come from “where we live, where we work and where we gather for conviviality”. It is the third which helps form an informal public life that can allow communities to “come into being and continue to be held together” online. The features of third places include:
• Conversation as the primary activity
• Displays of appreciation of human personality and individuality
• Tend to be low profile places that are taken for granted
• Have a regular clientele and a (usually) playful mood
• Extends psychological comfort and support.
While initial contact on the Well’s Parenting Conference may be more like ramblings to a foreign, invisible audience, these may provide relief from a sense of isolation, especially when confronted with crises. The choice to meet up offline may come about, which later can lead to “rituals”. The individuals in the virtual community become connected, not through common location, but through common interests. The social interaction possibilities is not limited by CMC (computer-mediated communication), but increased by it. Individual networks can be pooled together, such that resources for dealing with crises become more available (speedier). The community “learns” together about the topic, that is also the address where the community gathers to online. The community may even be willing to pay to upgrade infrastructure so that smoother communication may continue to be held online between members. As with Thompson, the addiction possibility is real. However, the addiction to an online community is portrayed as perhaps a lesser evil among a variety of other addictions. Does it make sense to say that one is addicted to social interaction? When the boundaries of both online and offline interactions overlap, does it still make sense to view one as a lesser form of interaction, merely a “simulacrum of real passion and true commitment to one another”? The degree to which this interaction is real can be seen from the effects of the Scribble tool, that searches for posts and deletes them. This tool disrupts the fabric of recorded conversation. Since posts can be made in response to and provoking other responses, to remove them can leave holes in the flow of “conversation”. Such action can be regarded as antisocial (or even intellectual suicide online). Yet, since such interactions are online, they can gain the reach and permanence of publications, enabling the community and much of the recorded interactions to “withstand assaults” caused when an individual withdraws so completely from the interactions online.
Boyd mentions “networked publics”. To her, social network sites where there can be articulated expressions that can help identity formation, status negotiation and peer-to-peer sociality. Profiles are a form of individual or group home page, which offers a description of each member. SNSs are based on profiles, comments and friends, which differentiates them from other CMCs. There is customizability and varying degrees of privacy. Public is used by Boyd in its multiple meanings. The networked publics have a distinctly different architecture from other mediated and unmediated publics: persistence, searchability, replicability and invisible audiences. The article discusses practices on these spaces.
This week, we read articles by Rheingold, Boyd and Thompson. All of whom wrote about new media being collectivities.
Rheingold touched on the early days of new media with a focus on The WELL which basically seems like a forum with lots of discussion topics. The WELL sort of works like a community because you get to know people, discuss about everything and anything under the sun, get help, etc. Though there are positives about such an online community, there are also chances of being flamed online and getting into arguments.
Boyd analyses the use of social networking sites like MySpace among teenagers and how teenagers do impression management. I think she is trying to put forth the similarities of the social situation online and offline and that adults should not react the way they do with regard to their children’s actions online as they are doing what they would do offline and this is part of the social fabric of society where teenagers learn what’s socially acceptable and what’s not, what’s valuable and what’s disdained, etc.
Thompson explains why Twitter is a collective and not something that seems pointless. He sees Twitter as a platform that allows a circle of friends to gather and update information about each other so that at least within this circle of friends, you know what is happening in each other’s lives even if you do not physically meet up.
New media is rapidly growing and more can be done on such sites with all the shares, likes, comments and what not. It brings us to the issue of the etiquette of using such sites which I think Rheingold and Boyd mentioned. There is a need to remind users that comments should not be so brutal and ruthless as emotions are involved. There is the issue of cleansing/censoring content on profiles to manage impressions, etc. How should people use such ‘networked publics’? There is a need to find a balance of doing what you want online and at the same time being careful of what you do online. However, balancing this is going to be problematic.
This week’s readings explore the communities and networks that emerge within new media, as well as the implications such collectives have for social interactions amongst people of different age, class and racial groups.
Boyd asserts that public spheres in general are essential in individuals’ development as they are spaces in which norms are both created and reinforced. For teenagers, publics are especially important for they are socialized through trial and error. However, with the development of new media, mediated public spaces are formed, where the scale of the public is changed, due to persistence, replicability, invisible audiences and searchability and this is in stark contrast to unmediated spaces where the public is structurally defined and limited by physics and geography. For Boyd, the way teenagers perform, interpret and adjust in mediated public spaces or social networks like MySpace is in line with Goffman’s impression management and the larger process where people read from their environment to extrapolate and understand what is normal and appropriate behaviour. Boyd also asserts that teenagers would require self-reflexivity and self-monitoring to ensure they exhibit socially accepted behaviour in an unimaginably wide public sphere.
For Rheingold, computer mediated communications resulted in the creation of virtual communities that have the potential for individuals to amass greater socio-cultural, political, intellectual and commercial leverage. He argues that the social interactions and happenings in the digital sphere can be translated and manifested into changes within the material realm. He posits: “cyberspace is one of the informal public places where people can rebuild the aspects of community that were lost“ and this runs along the same ideals as Turkle who maintains that the virtual space allows for a reconceptualization of social reality or a psychosocial moratorium.
Thompson argues that social networks like Twitter allow for both a collective and a new kind of intimacy to be developed. “Twitter and other constant-contact media create social proprioception. They give a group of people a sense of itself, making possible weird, fascinating feats of coordination.” As such, people develop an understanding greater than themselves, and immerse themselves in a larger network of individuals that result in a more interconnected society.