8 thoughts on “Week 12 – New Media Collectivities (T4)

  1. Patricia loh hui ye

    In the article Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites; The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life, Danah Boyd addresses the issues of how digital social media affects youth and their identities. I can’t agree more with Boyd that the properties of social media are fundamentally altering social dynamics. People no longer communicate face to face in the same way they used to, and thus they’re losing the skills to do so. Personally, I found it a depressing topic to contemplate. However, in an effort to see some light in our generations situation, I’d argue that in the electronic world we live in, social media is helping to develop necessary skills. The skills needed for many jobs today involve little personal contact but lots of textual online communication. Looking optimistically, could blogs, as well as Facebook and twitter be fostering the type of knowledge needed for today’s standard jobs?

  2. Dionne Cheah

    In this week’s reading, Thompson’s article on Twitter struck a chord in me. I’ve been a Twitter user for almost 5 years and I must admit, when I first discovered Twitter I used it almost everyday to share my bite-sized thoughts. By now, I only check in once every few days but whenever I do, but I still have the tendency to keep scrolling and checking what my friends are up to (like what Thompson mentioned). He feels this sort of constant-contact media develops social proprioception, and I have to agree with him on this point. Rather than getting updates from my friends directly, I end up discovering more about them through Twitter. Among friends, usually the interesting and vague tweets end up becoming our topics of conversation, as we probe each other to find out more. So perhaps it’s like what Thompson points out – with new types of media emerging, our patterns of interaction change and evolve as well.

  3. Averie Lim

    I would think that the rising online communities on social media sites (with low barriers to entry) can be used to our advantage in the way that users who are “lurking” in these groups are able to derive knowledge and argument points (unbeknownst to those who are not part of these groups) and utilise them in conversations during physical networking. The ease of accessing information in today’s age allow us to easily engage in conversation with others.

    The networked public through the circulation of news on social media also allow users who are not part of the community to gain access to these information when they see these posts on their newsfeed. Thus allowing the ease of infiltration in to different social groups.

  4. Tan Zhuan Liang

    Dannah boyd’s article is thought intriguing. I felt that the notion of a virtual membership is interesting as well. It may seem that an online-membership lacks authenticity particularly with the rise of online communities in social networks like Facebook. One could register himself to any online group regardless if it’s pertaining to his own interests or not. I could join a ‘Singapore foodie group’ for its insights for delicious food, yet there isn’t a real check on my membership which acknowledge my presence in the group if I just keep mute online by not posting or giving any comments. This brings up the notion of lurking around online. What attracts virtual memberships are self-interests and knowledge purpose. Both could be for short term gains or long term gains, but ultimately social networks even like in Twitter has made it easier to gain access to such membership which could be exclusive prior to the rise of popularity of social network. Hence while there may be a growing trend on a particular interests, it’s still vital to have a certain form of check to stomp and acknowledge one’s membership.

  5. Russell Lim

    After readings boyd’s article on the increasing prevalence and significance of social network sites, or networked publics, I am intrigued by the meteoric rise of such sites. I note this phenomenon with particular interest as I do not have a presence on any of such networked publics. Browsing through her article, I cannot help but wonder if I am missing out on significant socialization processes that might prove crucial in the future. Indeed, my lack of online interactions on networked publics may turn out to affect my social growth and development. Off to make a Facebook account!

  6. James Ang

    I have gathered from Clive Thompson’s reading that the virtual community creates social bond based on sense and feelings. Twitter thus creates social proprioception whereby we gain a sense of our friends’ presence.

    Yet, Twitter is not only limited to a platform for friends to gather. Twitter is also a place where celebrities connect with their fans. Celebrities post highlights of their days on their twitter accounts and this is instantly retweeted by dozens of fans. Eventually, such tweets are spread across the globe. Can such actions be seen as an attempt for celebrities to create a sense of presence with their fans? If this is indeed the case, does sense actually deepens the intimacy between users of twitters, especially between celebrities and their fans?

    Personally, while I may have gained some awareness of my friends’ life through twitter, those tweets only served as conversation starters in reality. They do not serve to increase the depths of my friendship with my friends. Hence, if Thompson argued that Twitter does create sense, does that sense lead to greater intimacy or greater level of friendships?

  7. Gareth Nah

    In her article, boyd highlights the explosion in popularity of social network sites amongst the youth of today’s digitalized and networked world. The emergence of sites such as Facebook and more recently, Twitter and Instagram, is broadly significant in that it revolutionizes and redefines social interactions between users. boyd uses her study of MySpace to illustrate the rising influence of such sites, or “networked publics”, on teenage social life.

    The presence of the “invisible audience” on such sites particularly attracts my attention as I have long considered myself highly conscious of such an online gaze upon my presence in these networked publics, at least compared to the callous approach taken by many of my peers. While boyd highlights the widespread practice of “writing a purportedly private message…in a public space for other to view”, through her example of an online conversation between “Corey” and his friend, I have long been aware of the unspoken public-ness of my online interactions, and hence wary of engaging in such interactions. Although I have long been an avid user of networked publics such as Facebook and Twitter, I retain, to this day, a preference for “traditional” face-to-face interaction, which I consider more “real”. boyd’s discussion of the invisible audience is indeed intriguing for me, as I find myself able to relate to her arguments. Indeed, reading her arguments, I find myself relieved that I have finally found someone who perceives the invisible audience as I do, in contrast to ridiculing my expressed apprehensions about revealing too much online as “absurd” or “paranoid”.

    boyd’s discourse on the “replicability” of networked publics brings to mind the Frankfurt School’s argument that reproducing a work strips it of its “aura”. While the Frankfurt School takes a dim view of such reproducibility, arguing that reproductions devalue the original, boyd contends that reproductions in networked publics provide “no way to distinguish the “original” from the “copy””.

    Rheingold presents virtual communities as spaces used to link users together on the basis of their participation. In this sense, they are understood to be as “real” as physical communities, as they are used as sources of support and information. These communities transcend geography to bring people close and bond them along topical lines. However, the lack of “embodiment”, as boyd (2002) describes, gives rise to noticeably different dynamics online. Users may choose to be active, or maintain a distance, depending on the situation. Additionally, the invisibility of certain bodily expressions and nuances may subvert the meaning of certain interactions, illustrating the perils of a lack of embodiment. Indeed, it is common to hear of friend writing exclamations such as LOL! or OMGGG, to express surprise or amusement, while remaining stony-faced behind their computers. This is, to me, as hilarious as it is absurd.

  8. Lee Wei Jie

    I refer to Danah Boyd’s conclusive statements about how networked publics are the new means to allow the current and following generations to mature as a person. Identity formation has always been a key in understanding oneself, and the trajectories that one desires to take.

    The involvement of online network spaces have undeniably affected how one sees identities: online and offline self, virtual and real world self, etc. I find that although much of the bigger popular social media sites pursue to keep one’s identity and self as limited to the one singular identity, yet social networks have the undeniable factor that allows people to multiply different identities to live on. It seems as though that all these are done to assume the freedom of consequences and accountability. Yet how has this network identities really affected society today?

    Whilst doing my research, I found this video online showcasing a lady (whose real life identity is Jessica) but who prefers her online identity as Autumn Edows, where she is edified with her friends (or invisible audience as Boyd suggests). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ht_h3dQU8wA

    How should one navigate the online world and the formation of identity and self? Further, if there are multiplicity of identities online, how should a user navigate and discern scams from the real?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *