Update on MySpace Suicide

I saw this on CNN tonight. If anybody still checks this, here is the link

Have a wonderful summer everyone!

Where people find the time...

I came across this via reddit.com. It's Clay Shirky talking about where people find the time to create entire encyclopedias on the Internet just for fun. He talks about how media consumption is shifting towards a participation-consumption, and the fact that doing SOMETHING (e.g., playing World of Warcraft) is better than doing NOTHING (watching another episode of Gilligan's Island). I think it's 15 minutes or so, but an interesting talk.

Second Life Scavenger Hunt Photos

I should have taken a snapshot of the class, darn. But I put up an album of the scavenger hunt screenshots you guys sent me.

Twitter saves the day?

As reported on CNN.com:

Buck, a graduate student from the University of California-Berkeley, was in Mahalla, Egypt, covering an anti-government protest when he and his translator, Mohammed Maree, were arrested April 10.

On his way to the police station, Buck took out his cell phone and sent a message to his friends and contacts using the micro-blogging site Twitter.

The message only had one word. "Arrested."

And Twitter saves the day ...

Who writes Wikipedia? (Besides you)

Depending on how you do your counting, either a tiny core of people are making most of the edits, or an incredible number of people are making contributions. Aaron Swartz crunches some numbers and suggests that Wikipedia is built by the multitudes and cleaned up by a few. This is probably what we expected, but co-founder Jim Wales has argued otherwise.

A possible caveat: We could be over-counting heads because we don't know who all the anonymous users are, and how many people they represent. Someone might be particularly interested in staying incognito (for whatever reason) and to remain anonymous. Or one person might make multiple edits here and there as they stumble across them over several years but never bother to create an account:

e.g., (power)User: Faithlesswonderboy

"I edited for years under various IPs, never bothering to register an account until July 2007, as I was frustrated at my inability to edit Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Unfortunately, I don't know what my IP addresses were; there were many, as I edited at school, various coffeehouses and I borrowed several different wireless signals at my old apartment."

Hyper-Coordination Via Mobile Phones

Ling and Yitri examines 3 specific age groups within Norway and their use of the mobile phones. Norway provides the ideal sample population as its citizens have one of the highest adoption rates for cell phone use. Whats most intriguing about this specific article is that Ling and Yitri is not so much concerned with how much much cell phone are used within each specific age group but rather the manner in which it is used and the motivations behind its usage.
In terms of methodology, they gathered subjects of 4 age groups that ranged from teenagers to individuals who were well into adulthood. Interviews were conducted through a series of 10 interviews. The motivations Ling and Yitri identified were concerns for security, a need to coordinate, and hyper coordination.
The idea of safety and motivations to assure safety was most expressed among the older users of mobile phones. An example of this is the possibility of car accidents or natural disasters occurring with one needing an immediate means to communicate or seek help. It is only logical for the older age group to express this type of concern as they most likely have dependents and thus the idea of safety becomes more important to them.
In terms of the potential to coordinate, the middle age groups were most drawn to cell phones as a result of this. An example of this is when someone is stuck in traffic and call to tell the person they are meeting that they are going to be late. This is perhaps the most practical aspect of cellphone usage and appropriate to those in the middle age groups who perhaps use cell phones for work.
Finally, the most interesting feature in this study is the idea of hyper coordination. Hyper coordination does not only describe their use of the device to coordinate events with their peers but also include the idea of self expression through their usage. The teenage years are perhaps the key to establishing a sense of an autonomous self. Teens are in a constant attempt to distance themselves from their parents as they are drawing more likeliness to their peers. Their use of the cell phone is the perfect example of this as they use it as a means to connect with friends and express a sense of social belonging. Furthermore, Yitri and Ling state that the cell phone allows teens to form intimate relationships through a new medium. As a whole, they term this expression of self and use of the cell phone for the sake connectivity as hyper coordination.

Discussion Question.
1. One of the interesting things that the researchers predict is that the younger generation who were most willing to adopt the cell phone will continue to use the technology in dynamic ways in the future. Do you believe that the type of usage is natural with age or do you think that the age in which adoption occurs influences the nature of the usage. In other words, when the current young generation gets old, do you think they'll use the phone for safety purposes like the current adults or do you think they'll use it in more dynamic ways because they adopted the technology earlier?

The Everyday Internet

New Media and Society

In this article two researchers examine how non-professional Internet users domesticate the Internet into their daily activities. They conducted their research by going into internet users’ homes, interviewing them, and observing their interior and exterior computer environment. Their discussion takes a look at each person’s unique motivation for computer use. Their discussion is more informative than conclusive.

Questions For Discussion:
Other than simply emailing, academia, or as a way to pass time, do you use the Internet for any similar motivations discussed in the article? Do you know any one that has? How?

My Answer:
For me, my parents have always been really strict and when I was younger (late high school) it was difficult for me to communicate with boys or hang out after school, especially at night. In this regard I turned to the Internet to chat with people- mostly guys- for hours. It was a way to satisfy my teenage urge to associate with the opposite sex. I would also surf the web and read articles that would help me fit in as a normal teenager. Like, reading up on teen vogue and checking out American Eagle Outfitters to see what’s cool since I wasn’t able to go out and find out what’s new in the teen world on my own.
Yeah, I told you guys my parents are wack.

The Virtual Commons

Kollock and Smith identify a problem that exists in Usenets- a collection of thousands of discussion groups with over two million users worldwide (discussion boards, threads etc). People are attracted to online communities because of its absence of social status. People are able to cooperate more along with each other, however can behave selfishly. Users have an individual rather than collective rationality. Meaning, that there is a temptation to feed off common grounds and benefits of the virtual world rather then contributing to production.

They refer to a discussion board as a common floor and threads as a public good, and that “the interactional work that is necessary to keep a conversation going is a kind of public good in the sense that it is possible to free-ride on others' efforts, using and abusing the conversation without contributing to its maintenance.”

One dilemma they discuss is bandwidth- the lengthiness and relevancy of threads. They argue that users stringing along too much unnecessary information disrupt the order. In this situation a user takes advantage of the generous bandwidth limit while other users “regulate” their discussion behavior.
Other dilemmas occur when there are users asking questions but never answering, getting off topic, flaming, and lurking- reading discussions but never posting.

They discuss research of groups in general, finding that cooperation exists when group (size) boundaries and rules exist, people’s behavior can be monitored, sanctions are used, and members have access to low-cost conflict resolution mechanisms

They point out that most of these qualities are implausible via CMC. The believe setting group boundaries is most important, so that only those who contribute most into a “good” and receive a greater “return.” A way of reaching this point would be to have newsgroup membership restrictions. They suggest that newsgroups should allow people to view discussions but only admitted users to post and reply threads. They also suggest a democratic newsgroup community where users can modify rules and regulations.

Here are some questions for discussion:

Have you seen any of these dilemmas occur online? Where? How did you feel about it?
Do you think this is a valid concern and that Usernet groups should consider remedying these problems?
What other ways can we contribute to its maintenance, if at all possible?

Personally I think the discussion of how general groups are regulated wasn’t very helpful because almost everything discussed can’t be applied in Usenet.
More importantly, people don’t want to be bothered by rules and regulations online. I even think flaming can be interesting and entertaining. If users are so concerned with people not cooperating, want to limit users, and keep people on topic, then they should just turn to using a blog.
I do recall one time, however, when a discussion board I frequently participated in was getting disrupted. I’m a huge Lord of The Rings fan, and when the Fellowship came out I would monitor and participate in the AOL “LOTR” discussion board. It got annoying when teens started posting, “who’s hotter- Elijah Wood or Orlando Bloom?” It was so off topic. But when can you do, it’s just the little price to pay with an endless plethora of freedom of speech over the Internet.

Design Principles for Online Communities

When Internet Communities are created, the creators never consider ways of making the environment resemble real life more. They claim that it is not important, or it is something no one can do anything about. Kollock disagrees entirely with this statement, and he goes on to argue why he believes these factors should be considered.

Many systems try to give themselves "an impressive look", but they don't focus on "fostering social interaction". Kollock believes that WorldsAway is a great example of a community that has been able to cater to our social needs. He argues that this community has the elements to be successful. He defines these elements as:

" Identity persistence, a sophisticated set of rituals, an internal economy with a monetary system, property rights, a rich set of documents recording the history of the community, a coherent sense of space, casual interaction caused by the fact that one must "walk" most places, and a moderate level of risk. "

Kollock says that cooperation and social dilemmas are important in analyzing design principles. Social dilemmas are "situations where behavior that is reasonable an justifiable for the individual leads to a poorer outcome for all". He discusses two cases of social dillemmas.

First, he discusses the prisoner's dilemma, as a social problem, where people choose to behave selfishly over behaving cooperatively . He concludes that a way of avoiding this is by ensuring the presence of the following three conditions:
1. Individuals must be likely to meet in the future.
2. Individuals must be able to identify each other.
3. Individuals must have information about how the other person has behaved in the past.

A second set of possible solutions analyzed to general social dilemmas is discussed through Ostrom's study. She concludes that the following features are common in successful communities:
1. Group boundaries must be clearly defined. I.e. everyone must be aware of their limitations depending on what group they're in.
2. Collective resources are used - rules are dependent on the needs of the members participating in the community.

He uses these conditions to conclude that online communities should adopt these styles in order to be more succesful. likewise, he come up with additional elements that should be incorporated into a successful online community.

• -the need for scarcity and risk in the online world. Even though we don't appreciate these characteristics, they still make an "interesting and engaging world".
  
  
• be able to change and modify one's environment, as well as having the opportunity to participate in a market of some kind.

He concludes that in general, online communities should consider the conditions discussed above, in order to create a space where social dilemmas are reduced. People shouldn't take so much energy into developeing online systems that are "instant, seamless, and fully interconnected", and instead decelop a community with more social benefits.

QUESTIONS
Kollock claims that social computing deals with user interface design instead of "actual social interaction between two or more people". He claims that online communities don't concentrate on developing a platform for effective interaction amongst the participants.

1. Consider some of the online communities available today and evaluate whether or not you believe them to cater to our social interactive needs. Do they take into account any of the conditions set forth by Kollock? If so, explain how they are able to cater to our needs. If not, explain how they could take Kollock's advice and become more efficient online communities.

World Without The Internet

Once again South Park makes another episode that relates to our class. The new episode aired this Wednesday is about everyone waking up one day to the internet not working. It's called Over Logging. Haha, it is so funny.

Here's the link:
http://www.southparkzone.com/episodes/1206/Over-Logging.html

Online Games as Third Places

Sarah pretty much covered all of the information regarding the second life article so the majority of this post will pertain to the reading regarding MMOs (massively multi player online) games.

Steinkuehler and Williams argue that online games create a type of "third place" that allows for both informal relationship which exposes users to diverse world views and an avenue to create social capital. This idea of the "third place" stems from the idea of an anonymous existence within a social game. Unlike home or work, MMOS do not place people in familiar circles and are thus a "third place" for social mixing much like a bar or a pub. As outlined by Williams and Steinkuehler, what makes the MMO space unique from that of the bar or pub atmosphere is the anonymous nature of MMOs. Players, for the most part are able to detach their true identity away from that of their characters unless they otherwise choose to represent their characters as themselves. Hence, the authors of this paper refer to MMOs as being a "magic circle" where the offline persona can remain hidden. What remains is a sense of true meritocracy as characters are not judged based on financial status or social stature but almost exclusively on online performance. Furthermore, the vast number of users provide a rich potential for the creation of social capital through online activities.

What ultimately makes this "third place" an effective social mixing place is really the game itself and its demand for communication. As outlined by the authors, their study of four MMOs show that a well developed communications system and a need to communicate allows the user to create social capital. The authors describe the online communication systems of MMOs as a more advanced system of instant messenger. Multiple types of communication apply simultaneously as players message each other privately while also taking part in public chats. Furthermore, the built in features of MMOs such as the ability to bartar and organize in large groups to take on difficult tasks demands a sense communication.

In conclusion, this creation of a "third place" in online space can possibly dispel the classic idea of "bowling alone." Past researchers often expressed a fear towards the possibility that the internet would displace social activity and create an entire general of lonesome social hermits. However, the recent rise of MMOs and the vast popularity of social games has shown that the internet can be the great enabler of social mixing.

1. Discuss some ways in which you believe that MMOs differ from a bar/pub atmosphere and discuss some ways in which your interactions would differ in a bar/pub as opposed to an MMO.
2. Talk about some ways that 2nd life serves as a third space and do you believe that anonymity helps in the creation of a third space?

Playing Together - Wired's guide to Second Life

I have Second Life installed, but I have not been able to try it out yet. So I was really glad when I found out that I had signed up to write a post on Wired Travel Guide's guide to Second Life.

Wired's guide gave a well-rounded overview of Second Life, from its history to how to shop for your avatar. The guide was organized into four categories: Facts for the Visitor, Entertainment, Destinations, and Shopping. I particularly found the first category to be the most helpful, as it described the facts involving Second Life, from its history to how it functions. If you're completely unfamiliar to Second Life like I am, I think it's a very good idea to read "Facts for the Visitor." The other categories were helpful as well, as I now know the places I can visit, the games that I can play, and where I can go to shop.

In comparison to other similar online communities such as Habbo Hotel and Unichat, Second Life seems more...dimensional. Second Life has more dimension not o

nly in the visual sense (that it's 3D) but there is more to it than chatting with other users. Like how Wired's guide pointed out, Second Life is also a place where users can earn money, get involved in the many and various forms of entertainment, buy land/create a new location, and more. It is also a place for marketers and entrepreneurs to market to Second Life users.

After reading Wired's guide, I'm kind of eager to try out and explore Second Life. I think I'm going to try going shopping so my avatar will look good for our class meeting!

Discussion Questions

1. Have you tried out Second Life yet? What are your thoughts on it?

2. If you have tried out Second Life, do you feel like there is a strong sense of community?

3. If you haven't tried out Second Life, do you think you will find a strong community? Would you be interested in getting involved?

------------Edit 4/16/08--------------

After trying out Second Life with the Class, I think Second Life is pretty neat. The scavenger hunt was pretty fun, and I got to really experience some of the possiblities that Second Life offers. Here's one of my screenshots:

Riding the monorail

Google twins and Googlegängers

Sadly, none of the six people I poked on Facebook for sharing my name (including same middle initial) responded or poked back. But this NYTimes article, Names That Match Forge a Bond on the Internet, gives me some hope yet:

In “Finding Angela Shelton,” a book published this month, a writer named Angela Shelton describes her meetings with 40 other Angela Sheltons. Keri Smith, an illustrator, has posted drawings of six of her Googlegängers on her blog. There are name-tally Web sites like SameNameAsMe, and Facebook coalitions including nearly 200 people named Ritz (their insignia is a cracker box logo) and a group aiming to break a world record by gathering together more than 1,224 Mohammed Hassans.

The beginning of the article talks about this happening. The end goes into some of the psychology behind it, which we talked a bit about in class.

------------------------------
follow-up 4/17/08

Someone poked back!

Online Communities

Building on our discussion of online communities, the readings for Wednesday focused specifically on the way in which online and offline communities affect one another. Three basic theories were addressed: that computer mediated communication destroys traditional outlets of community; that CMC enables entirely new and unique communities to form; and that CMC supplements traditional forms of community, adding to it new dynamics that change it all together.

In the TLT reading we established that community can no longer be thought of in terms of location. That instead community is characterized by shared interests, activities, and feelings of sociability, which are now possible independent of geographical location. TLT focused on the idea that “Online groups are woven into the fabric of offline life rather than set in opposition to it.” (TLT, 113)

The Wellman, Quan-Haase, & Boase article explored more closely the ways in which online activity can affect social interaction. The findings of the experiments were very positive, demonstrating that in each case an increase in online social action actually increases social interaction offline as well. In one experiment they studied a new housing development, half of which had been equipped with broadband internet access. The other half of the development did not have broadband access, and houses either used a dial-up connection or had no internet at all. Not only did the people in the ‘wired’ houses have more frequent contact with more local community members than ‘non-wired’ people, but they also “maintained more long-distance contact with friends and relatives than non-wired residents did.” People in the wired houses even organized online to form a protest against new houses being built in the development.

The other experiments followed in similar suit, but one important idea was established: networked individualism. Because of advances in mobile communication technology “connections are [being made] to people and not to places.” For example, instead of being restricted to calling someone’s office or home, cell phones now enable us to contact someone directly and personally, wherever they may be located. The idea is that “this shift facilitates personal communities that supply the essentials of community separately to each individual: support, sociability, information, social identities, and a sense of belonging.” And that this can all occur independently, or in conjunction with a geographically immediate community.

1. In what ways has communication technology encouraged or detracted from your social interaction offline?
2. Do you believe that our increasing ability to communicate independent of location is changing the way we perceive community?

No-laptop Policy

Hey everyone,
I work at the law school so I picked up 'the National Jurist' and saw this interesting article which I thought people might want to read. We talked about it in class, and what we thought about classrooms not allowing laptops. Anyway, this article talks about different professors, their laptop policies and the pros and cons etc.
It's interesting, I promise.
Kassandra

Is there such thing as privacy online?

Well, I am also sorry for the (very) late post that was supposed to be up last week. I have no good excuse besides the fact that I have a severe case of senioritis... It's funny, now when I write things on this blog, I think twice about what I write because as I found last week in our in-class activity this is one of the sites that pops up when my name is googled... so I better watch what I write because you never know who's reading, right?

My concerns here are similar to the issues that were brought up in the Barnes reading about Teens and online social network sites and privacy issues. The main idea that Barnes focuses on is that social networking sites offer a "paradoxical world of privacy," where:

• they offer teens a community to share thoughts and ideas, and connect with eachother
• but at the same time, these sites are used by government and businesses to collect information on us

While adults tend to be concerned with this second point, teens tend to focus on the social aspects of such networking sites and are often unaware that their privacy could potentially be at stake. In numerous studies, results showed that teens were often unaware of just how public their information was on such social networking sites, and some didn't care, just as long as their parents didn't see. Teenagers often assume privacy when putting their information out on social networking sites--they assume that they have control over who does and doesn't see their personal information, however this isn't always the case. Because of their willingness to freely express themselves over the internet, many are becoming concerned with teenagers' distorted views of online privacy.

All in all, I don't there is a single approach to tackle this problem but there should be an increase in education about privacy issues and social networking sites among teens. I think that social network sites are a positive medium for teens to express themselves within, however I also think it can be dangerous that they are not aware of just how public their information really is.

1. Do you think more needs to be done by the government to enforce privacy online, or is it simply up to the individual to be responsible for the information they put online?
2. Should marketers and other organizations be able to collect information on you based off of your profile on online sites?
3. Are you personally concerned with third parties collecting information on you based off your social network profile?
   

Online Community I

Greetings, and sorry for the late post. I hope everybody had a wonderful weekend. I spent mine trying to find a job (you can see how excited I am with the prospect of leaving college in 40 days), and being OCD about about my Capitals and their quest for the playoffs. Anyway, that left me a little behind on the reading, so my apologies.

Our topic for this week is online communities. Our reading was slightly dated, making it a little difficult for me to get through as I continuously asked myself "Is this still relevant?" and "How well do these stats hold up today?" That being said, the reading did still bring up some interesting questions about online communities; particularly, are they communities?

By now we've come to take it for granted that an online community is actually a type of community, one where people of similar mindsets can gather without gathering (how post-modern), and share information and interact with each other.

The reading questions that logic by introducing theories that the homogeneity and the "lack of moral commitment" of online communities do not, in fact, make them communities. Challengers of the notion of online communities site the fact that they are easy to join and leave (just click and you're in!) and that a vast majority of the world's population doesn't have access to the internet, (my opinion... so? Most of the world doesn't have access to my neighborhood does that not make it a community?)

Then there's this argument:

A community is bound by place, which always includes complex social and environmental necessities. It is not something you can easily join. You can't subscribe to a community as you subscribe to a discussion group on the net. It must be lived. It is entwined, contradictory and involves all of our senses.

I don't even know where to start with that one, so I won't.

The reading continues to analyze the possibility of online communities by discussing the people involved and their behavioral norms, the relationships that are created through online interaction, the users' identity, etc. The reading does go on to realize that it may be a bit early to tell if online communities are really communities, ambiguously concluding that they are an "Emergent Community."

Now to the good stuff:

Questions for discussion and/or contemplation:

1) Is an online community really a community?
2) Why are some people so fearful of the notion of an online community?
3) What draws people to an online community? Similar interests? Boredom?

Oh, and did anyone catch South Park last week in its parody of the Writer's Strike? There was a great bit about stars from the internet such as Star Wars Kid and Dramatic Look Gopher (which is actually a prairie dog).

Also, the end of the episode tipped on our brief discussion of monetizing a business on the internet. The entire episode can be seen here. The scenes are available here and here.

Internet Dating Can Be Cool

Hey everyone -
I picked up this on campus magazine and read this article that is pretty pertinent to what we've been looking at and talking about on internet dating.
You may want to check it out, it's an easy read on Internet Dating and how it's not such a loser/last resort thing to do anymore.

Check it out

person-to-public privacy: xbox live moron

Guy's xbox is stolen. Online gamers help locate xbox thief, ridicule him online, call his mom.
The YouTube video of Fox's news report.

Internet similarly helpful in finding guy's stolen car. via reddit.

SNS photos, security, and saving

Two links that you can peruse at your leisure:

Security lapse exposes Facebook photos
(The Paris Hilton thing we talked about in class)

Yahoo! Answers on whether or not you can upload FaceBook photos but prevent people from saving it. (Gotta love Yahoo! Answers' advice from the masses)

Privacy on the Internet

The ‘Trust and privacy online:

Why Americans want to rewrite the rules’ article gives a summary on privacy issues associated with website usage. It describes how Americans are skeptical about websites having their information, yet they don’t take the appropriate steps in protecting themselves.

Only 27% of Americans surveyed think that it is useful for websites to keep track of users, meaning that 73% of us don’t agree with the current policy. To summarize; the Clinton Administration allows for companies to track our information without us knowing or approving, as long as we have the option to view “what kinds of personal information they collect and how they use it” and as long as we are able “to take steps to protect [our] privacy”. The government’s views differ to that of 86% of Internet users who think that Internet companies should ask people for permission to use their personal information.

This is what allows companies such as toys r us, amazon.com and Pharmatrak Inc., to obtain our information without us knowing. Only a quarter of internet users are skeptical enough to take action against websites, and only 44% of us know what a cookie is. Those who take action in defending their privacy online use “guerilla tactics” such as providing a fake name or personal information, using a secondary email address, sending a encrypted email and/or using software that hides their computer identity from Web sites.

The article goes on to argue that despite these fears and our non-preventative actions, 48% of us have bought things online with our credit card, 55% of us have sought medical information, 43% have sought financial help, and 25% have disclosed our information to make friends.

The second article, by Susan B. Barnes, also relates to our insecurity with regards to the internet. It discusses a point of view more related to Social Networking Sites. Again, we all have this fear of anonymous people knowing our information, yet we willingly disclose a lot of private information on social networking sites. As the article mentions, “we live in a paradoxical world of privacy - on one hand, teenagers reveal their intimate thoughts and behaviors online and, on the other hand, government agencies and marketers are collecting personal data about us”.

The article emphasizes that adults are more skeptical about providing personal information, but teenagers and younger users share all their personal information through SNS. Everyone claims to want to keep information private, but are willing to disclose their information on Facebook and myspace, which are public spaces. People don’t realize that “sharing their personal information on social networking sites is not only sharing with online friends. Parents, future employers, and university officials can also read journal entries”. The article goes on to state that users tend to respond neutraly to the statement that facebook respects their privacy, implying that many users seem to be aware that facebook may use their information.

The article states the major problems associated with information being made public:

1) children are exposed to pedophiles

2) teenagers being raped by people they meet on social networking sites

3) companies using the sites to collect marketing information

4) children under the age of 14 using social networks

It mentioned how the Department of Defense started keeping tracks of teenagers, including their ethnicity, phone numbers, e–mail addresses, intended fields of study and extracurricular activities. The article argues that the “government utilizes computer technology to exert some degree of control over its citizens, rather than protect their privacy”. The internet is stated to be a contemporary Panopticon, in that it is a constant anonymous surveillance that goes on in our lives.

The article proposes three types of solutions to this problem of online surveillance:

social solutions: having parents and schools take a stronger role in making their children aware of online threats

technical solutions: having SNS restrict age use, have more security functions and restrictions, and enforcing solutions and awareness of online predators.

legal solutions – having human monitoring of social networking sites aswell as technological solutions, and having the government reinforce them.

Questions:

1. If 68%of Internet users are concerned with computer hackers getting their credit card information, why do you think that 48% of users have bought something online? Why do you think our generation in particular will still continue to buy things online?
2. Nowadays, many websites we use, only allow for us to use them if we allow cookies to be installed. Among them, facebook, google, USC Webmail. What are your opinions on this? Would you prefer for cookies not to exist, or do you think it’s only fair for websites to have this information? Should the government be more protective on these laws?
3. Read the following statement: “Students wanted to keep information private, but did not seem to realize that Facebook is a public space. Sharing their personal information on social networking sites is not only sharing with online friends”. To what extent to you consider these consequences when disclosing textual and graphical information on websites?

Social Networking - New Narcissism and Creepy Ex Coworker

Hey guys, I apologize for making two posts regarding this week's articles. I have no idea why but I somehow had the notion that I had to make one post for each day of reading we have. If an admin can come and combine both of my posts, that be great. I guess feel free to leave comments on either of these topics.

Christine Rosen presents two very interesting ideas in the article, The Virtual Friendship and the New Narcissism. First she outlines the idea of the "six degrees of separation" and how the world is actually getting smaller via social networking sites. It seems as if the link between two individuals can generally be reached through 6 steps of communication. This short sequence of connections can at least partly be attributed to the rise of SNS websites that allow mutual friends to browse through profiles creating a link between one respective individual to another. The second idea is where the cynicism begins. Rosens bluntly states that online friendships cannot be confused for "real" ones and that some simply use SNS websites to achieve a sense of status rather than to make real social connections. As stated by Rosen, friendship requires a sense of privacy between two people and thus a "public friendship" is altogether a hoax and an oxymoron.
The second article regarding the creepy ex-coworker is the one that I found most interesting. the author is very openly displeased by some of facebook's tendencies to send him insignificant emails and use his profile pictures for online ads. However, that is not what bothers him the most. Doctorow argues that as facebook expands and more users come online, one will inevitably be faced with that one awkward situation. It could be the bully that used to harass you in school, or the high school crush who flat out rejected you, or the creep ex coworker who made you feel queasy. But that one person will eventually find you and drive you away from facebook because it is simply too awkward to reject that friend invite. I find this to be a very narrow minded view as it seems to be based too much on personal opinion. Perhaps other users don't feel the same type of social anxiety towards a past bully or an ex co worker. Some may have no problem obtaining a new online friend and receiving less than meaningful and genuine messages on their wall. I.e. the status seekers mentioned in Chrstine Rosen's article.

1. Do you agree with Christine Rosen's assessment of online friends and do you think status seeking is a key motivation for users of SNS websites.
2. Do you believe the awkward situations described by Doctorow will eventually harm prominent social networking sites?

Social Networking

As we discussed in class, we’ve all had some sort of experience with social networking sites, whether it be Xanga, MySpace, or FaceBook. Therefore I’m sure most of us know what it feels like to have more “friends” online than offline, to have your privacy threatened when someone you’d rather avoid decides to friend you, and to spend more time than necessary “carefully grooming yourself online,” as Rosen states in her article, “Virtual friendship and the new narcissism.”

In Rosen’s article, she gives an overview of social networking sites and their influence, from how the sites are changing the connotation of “friend” to how the sites are encouraging self expression and presentation. Rosen particularly discusses how sites such as MySpace and Facebook function as a digital self-portrait for the users, as she compares social networking sites to painted self-portraits and self-memorials/statues. Rosen analyzes the practice of impression management on social networking sites, as she states how a profile page is like “an embodiment of your personality” and how it is an opportunity for users to engage in identity play as they constantly modify and edit themselves on these sites.

Doctorow also discusses the practice of impression management on social networking sites in his article, “How your creepy ex-co-workers will kill Facebook.” He gives the example of a young woman teacher who had to censor and modify her Friendster profile when her students and boss began friending her. But unlike Rosen, Doctorow isn’t as critical towards social networking sites. Rosen concluded her article by stating her concern with how essential face-to-face communication is diminishing with the growth of computer-mediated communication through social networking sites. Doctorow, on the other hand, believes social networking sites are a temporary fad, as he suggests that as more users flock to social networking sites, the likelihood of privacy invasion will increase, which will thus cause users to leave and cause sites such as FaceBook end up in the “scrapheap of net.history.”

Rosen believes social networking sites and the emergence of “virtual friends” can potentially overtake the intimacy in relationships that usually occur outside of social networking sites. Doctorow thinks otherwise, as he believes that social networking sites are unsustainable and thus unlikely to do any harm. I support Rosen’s statement with how face-to-face communication is becoming less common due to the availability of other channels of communication such as social networking sites. However, I do not think social networking sites such as Facebook can cause significant harm as I also agree with Doctorow’s statement on the unsustainable nature of social networking sites.

Before I end this post, I want to return to Rosen’s analysis of impression management on social networking sites. Before writing this post, I went through my picture folders and found an archive of some of my old profile pictures from my first MySpace profile picture to the pictures I currently have up now in my Facebook profile. As I reviewed the pictures, I recognized how my pictures developed from typical profile pictures such as a regular headshot to pictures that really reflected my personality and interests. What Rosen pointed out in her article was true—social networking sites are a platform for users to create a self-portrait as they experiment and play with self-presentation. Narcissistic though it may seem, I believe my practice of self presentation on social networking sites have ultimately helped me to become more aware of my identity, and I’m glad for that.


Discussion Questions

1. “Rosen believes social networking sites and the emergence of “virtual friends” can potentially overtake the intimacy in relationships that usually occur outside of social networking sites. Doctorow thinks otherwise, as he believes that social networking sites are unsustainable and thus unlikely to do any harm.” Who do you agree with more?

2. Do you think social networking sites are negatively affecting the quality of relationships? (Rosen’s argument of less intimacy, the lack of qualities true that friendship entails such as vulnerability, etc.)

3. Doctorow predicted that users would eventually leave social networking sites as more people flock to them. He gave the example of the young woman teacher whose privacy was invaded when her students and boss friended her on Friendster. Do you think you will ever leave your social networking site if faced in a similar circumstance? Do you think Doctorow’s prediction will come true?

Social Networking Sites: History and Recent Areas of Study

This week's reading pertains to a brief history of social network sites as well several issues brought about by the prominent use of these sites.

As defined by Boyd and Ellinson, there are three necessary components of a social network site. First and foremost, the user must be able to create a profile of some variety. Secondly, the user must be allowed a means of maintaining a list of contacts whether they be friends or professional acquaintances. Finally, the user must be afforded some way to browse the profiles of others and interact with other users. As stated by Body and Ellinson, the first web site that presented this set of characteristics was sixdegrees.com, which allowed users to browse each others profiles beginning in 1997. Shortly thereafter, the three aforementioned characteristics began to show up in prominent web applications such as AIM, Match.com, QQ, etc. The site which really brought social network sites to the public eye was rapid growth of myspace, which launched in 2003 and continues to be one of the most prominent social networking sites around.

After having outlined a brief history of SNS (social network sites), Boyd and Elkins outlined several areas of study as it pertains to social network sites. The first is the concept of impression management as it is dictated by the creation of one's profile and one's online social interactions. The viewing of profiles create "public displays of connection" and thus impression management depends largely upon the nature of the user profile. There are two conflicting views upon this issue as one author suggests that there is a complex system involved in the management of an authentic profile while Boyd suggests that an authentic "real" profile can never exist in an SNS. Despite the idea that "fakesters" on SNS sites will never cease to exist, most social networking sites continually work to encourage their users to provide accurate and truthful profiles.

Another area of study examines the idea of bridging online and offline social interactions through SNS sites. The author argues that recent trends, such as vast popularity of facebook, suggests that online connections are made in more ways then one. Of course, one can still meet someone online at a site like match.com and bridge that connection off line. However, a site such as facebook provides a different approach to creating this bridge between offline and online activity. The authors note that most users of facebook who friend each already share some sort of off line social connection, whether it be a shared class or perhaps chance meeting at the library. Even if these existing relationships are weak, a SNS can strengthen this offline activity through online activties such as adding messages to someone else's wall or through small gestures such as poking or giving small online gifts.

1. The issue that I found most interesting was the idea of impression management on an SNS websites. Do you believe that an authentic "real" profile can really exist as an accurate means of describing yourself on an SNS. What qualities must an authentic profile have? Furthermore, do you believe that a profile is as effective as a 5 minute conversation offline? Why or why not.

Is MySpace Good for Society?

Folks in academia in industry respond to the question posed by Freakonomics author and blogger Stephen J. Dubner: Is MySpace Good for Society?

Has social networking technology (blog-friendly phones, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) made us better or worse off as a society, either from an economic, psychological, or sociological perspective?

What do you think?

Internet Addiction or Problematic Use?

The Yellowlees & Marks study along with Walther & Reid article both focus on the various arguments concerning "internet addiction." I put this term into quotations because many scholars and researchers in this field differ in whether this is an actual psychiatric disorder or not. The two schools of thought on this topic are as follows, according to Yellowlees & Marks:

• Internet addiction can be classified as a psychiatric disorder and can be signified by symptoms such as:
• excessive amounts of time spent online
• compulsive use of internet
  
• difficulty managing time spent online
• decreased Face to Face social interactions

VS

• Problematic internet use in certain individuals in relation to specific online activities they choose to partake in
  

Researchers such as Young and Case have developed self-tests based off of the gambling addiction test to see if one can be diagnosed as internet Dependant.

The Walther & Reid article's main focus is on the holes in the arguments that attempt to classify internet addiction as an actual disorder. They argue that internet addiction is not something that can be classified and diagnosed with a self-report survey. It is more subjective and needs to take into account a person's actual online activities. The term "addiction" is also problematic. First of all, under the defined characteristics of internet addiciton, many "normal" things--such as breathing--would fit the definition of an addiction. Second, in labeling certain types of internet use as an addiction, this is assuming that whatever activities the person is partaking in online, it is less valuable that offline tasks. This may not necessarily be the case. This is why I don't think "internet addiction" is one, an inadequate term because of the assumptions and generalizations it carries, and two because it fails to take into account the subjectivity of internet use. Here are some questions for thought:

1. What is it about about the nature of the internet that causes some scholars to label it as addictive?
   
2. Should certain internet-use patterns be defined as addictive or is there a different term that best describes this type of internet use? If so, do you still consider it a psychiatric disorder?
   

Young America - addicted to technology?

The comments about obsessive Blackberry use, as well as Sean SMSing in class, reminded me of this NYTimes article I came across last night -- Text Generation Gap: U R 2 Old (JK). It suggests a generation gap in text-message use, and seems to imply that what adults might perceive as compulsive cellphone texting is just kids being kids.

Are they compulsively text messaging? Or are they compulsively keeping up with their friends (through the most available means?)

Compulsive Use

The reading for this week focused on compulsive use of the internet, and considered addiction as a possible framework from which to view the phenomenon. The first study, by Mark Griffiths, focuses on case studies of five individuals who exhibited “excessive computer usage.” He evaluates the subjects in terms of their keeping with stereotypical notions of what an addicted user is and how they would behave. This stereotype he describes as “a teenager, usually male, with little or no social life and little or no self-confidence.” While Griffiths asserts in the introduction that “recent work suggests there are individuals who do not fit this stereotype,” he in effect disregards this statement and proceeds to characterize them as such. The three subjects who did not fall into this stereotype were concluded to not be “addicted” players, because their internet usage “counteract[ed] other deficiencies.” I think this is one of several weak points in this study because it assumes a very limited view of what “other deficiencies” could mean, and does not attempt to explain the behavior of the two “addicted” subjects in terms of some other countervailing motive. Also of note is a seeming bias Griffiths exhibits in the language he uses to describe computer use. When describing Jamie’s use of the computer he poses playing games as distinct from “using a computer properly.” Also when describing Gary’s usage he does the same thing, differentiating “serious computing” from gaming. While there may in fact be a difference between game playing and other activities on the computer, it seems like a false distinction to make because the focus of the study is on the addictive characteristics and tendencies of the subjects, not the particular activities they perform online. In fact, the subjects used in this study were “addicted” to a number of different computer relater activities, some gamers and others not, but they were nevertheless evaluated in the same way. Finally, the study of the five subjects does not seem like a sufficient method of analysis. The sample size was small, their accounts seemed biased (as in the account of Dave, given by his ex-wife whom he left for someone he met online), and the subjects themselves did not represent a wide range of excessive computer use (instead they were all fairly similar, conforming to Griffith’s preconceived notion of the “stereotypical” internet addict. However despite all this, I think the discussion of internet addiction engaged at the end of the paper is great. I especially liked his point regarding the structural characteristics of internet environments, and how they might affect computer use. This reminds me of new methods being used in video game development, in which they test players’ heart rates and other bodily functions to determine how to best structure the action. For example, by preceding a fast paced, intense action sequence with a long, slow paced cut scene a game developer is able to greatly increase a player’s level of arousal.

1. Do you see the deficiencies I outlined as problems in the study, or am I being hypercritical?
2. Besides the example I listed, what could some of the benefits be to purpose-driven structural engineering on the internet?

The second and third pieces we read were articles detailing some of the ways compulsive internet use has affected peoples’ lives. They focused on the negative effects of internet addiction and how it can disrupt one’s life outside of the virtual environment. They were in effect sensationalist pieces that focused on just a few examples in an attempt to prove a larger point, much in the same style as the case studies conducted by Griffiths. But unlike Griffiths, these two pieces assumed a very broad definition of what computer addiction means, and tried to raise a concern in the readers’ minds about their own internet use.

3. Do you think the examples given in the reading by Payne and Alter are accurate depictions of internet addiction?
4. Do you think a more narrow view of internet addiction (as proposed by Griffiths) or a more board view (as proposed by Payne and Alter) better conceptualized internet addiction?
5. Do you consider yourself an addict?

Antisocial Behavior Part II and Compulsive Use

Greetings yet again. This week's readings involve antisocial behavior (once again) and compulsive use. Today's post focuses on the first topic while tomorrows will focus on the second. To lighten the mood and get this blog rolling I thought I would share this video of a South Park episode involving World of Warcraft. The video doesn't play the entire episode, but watch as many clips as you can, it's pretty funny. The Video pretty much covers both topics for this week, including our first reading for Monday, involving Grief Play. (Nice Segue, huh?)

The first reading was a study performed on a style of play in MMORPG's known as Grief Play, where some players intentionally interfere with other players, thus ruining any fun those players might be having. The study broke down Grief Play into several different categories (Harassment, Power imposition, Scamming and Greed play). Each type of play has its own characteristics that are considered Griefing, though Harassment is seen as the worst form because it is intentionally causing distress for another player simply for the Griefer's enjoyment. The overall purpose of the paper was to define Grief play and establish different levels of Grief play.

The Next reading also discusses griefing, though it is a more journalistic piece on griefing and the growth of virtual online communities. It involved questions of ethics in the virtual world as it is becoming more possible to re-create the world in which we live virtually. Second Life and other online games have raised questions of freedom of speech and where the virtual world ends and the real world begins. There have been cases where online disputes have led to real-world murders. Also, as people are able to earn incomes from games like Second Life, griefing becomes more of an issue because it begins to put a financial strain on those actually playing the game. Everything in the article leads back to how to regulate such activity in a free online environment.

Which leads me to...

1) How do you regulate people's actions in online games such as WOW and Second Life? Do you?

2) Why do people grief? Is there a deeper reason other than just for fun?

3) Is it ethical to grief?

4) How does South Park always seem to get it right while being so outrageous?

5) Any other thoughts you may have.

Antisocial Behavior

I’ve always wondered if online addiction was a real disorder. The text in TLT made online compulsion and addiction seem less threatening than it is commonly believed to be, as it stated, “like cyberporn, the whole idea about ‘internet addition’ has been something of a moral panic.” The text also pointed out how the concept of Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD) actually started as a joke by psychiatrist Ivan Goldberg in 1995. Since then, the idea of online addition as a disorder spread as parents became more watchful of the time and activities their children spent online and the emergence of ‘cyberwidows’—women whose husbands became absent due to their addiction to the internet. Joseph Walther and Larry Reid’s excerpt in the text also pokes fun at the concept of online addiction, as they compare internet addiction to their made-up disorder, acadaholism, a disease where one is addicted to academe. The text concludes the topic on online addiction with this: “If you call the internet addicting, then you have to call all powerful, evocative experience addicting.” TLT also takes a supporting stance on the internet for antisocial behavior. The text states how the internet can be “socially liberating” and the “Prozac of social communication.” I find it interesting and even a bit amusing how TLT is so one-sided and supportive of the internet, as the unit concludes with a positive description of the internet—“A great deal of what we do online today is productive, useful, and healthy.”

The online articles on Megan Meier, however, contrast dramatically with their perception of the internet. To summarize the story of Megan Meier, Megan’s friend’s mother created a Myspace account as an eighteen year old boy to first befriend, then bully the emotionally unstable Megan Meier. The constant bullying eventually caused Megan to commit suicide, and when word of this event got spread into the internet through Sarah Wells, a blogger, a cybermob outraged against the mother, whose name was Drew, ensued. This story is an extreme case of how the internet can be harmful, both for people like Megan who are socially dependant to it, and to people like Drew who eventually needed police protection from angry mobs that were spurred up by Sarah Well’s blog post. Though the internet can be “liberating,” “useful,” and “healthy,” the story of Megan Meier also shows how the internet can be harmful and destructive as well.


Discussion Questions

1. Did you think TLT’s stance on internet addiction was biased and too favorable of the internet? What is your take on internet addiction—do you think it is a real disorder?

2. In your opinion, do you think the internet is a cause to antisocial behavior or a remedy for it?

3.In connection to the last post on social cues and avatars, in what instance in the Megan Meier story do you recognize reduced social cues, avatars, or group dynamics in CMC?

Reduced Social Cues (RSC) and Avatars

In one of our class discussions, I made a comment on how I sometimes find CMC more difficult than F2F communication due to the lack of social cues in a computer mediated conversation. I pointed out that my inability to see the person’s expression, physical movement/gestures, and hear their tone of voice would make it more difficult for me to determine the intent and the direction of the conversation. The text in TLT addressed this issue of how the absence of social cues can negatively effect computer mediation as they referred to it as the Reduced Social Cues (RSC) model. According to the text, the RSC model supports the idea that the absence of social cues causes communication between two people to become “difficult to manage…less fluid…and altogether more effortful” (p.61). In addition to that, the lack of social cues can also increase aggressive online interaction—or flaming—in online conversations. Without social cues, the text states that people are likely to be less self conscious and concerned about other people’s judgment, or disinhibition, due their physical distance or anonymity. A common example of disinhibition would be an out-of-the-ordinary comment on one’s social networking profile by someone who would never make that comment to that person face to face, or an instant message conversation with someone one would not commonly converse with. But often it is this “freedom from responsibility” and what others think of you that cause inflammatory remarks and spur aggressive and harmful interaction. Some examples of this are abandoned cybersex, the disclosure of personal and private information to strangers, and unrestrained aggressive and inappropriate remarks. Reduced social cues can disrupt computer mediated interaction due to misinterpretation and uncontrolled disinhibition, which can lead to flammatory interactions.

The article on The Proteus Effect also discusses social cues, but instead of discussing the effects of their absence, the article explains how the presence of individual cues such as avatars can influence one’s behavior and sense of identity. Unlike the SIDE model which emphasizes the effect of the group/social influence in the development of identity, as stated in the text in TLT, the Proteus Effect focuses more on how the identity is influenced by individual identity cues such as avatars. I particularly found the Proteus Effect interesting, as the article described how individual cues such as an attractive avatar versus an unattractive one influenced people’s behavior and sense of identity. In their study, participants with attractive avatars disclosed more information about them and stood at a closer distance with the confederate. The participants with unattractive avatars, in contrast, disclosed less information and stood at a greater distance away from the confederate. The effect of individual cues in the Proteus Effect reveals how appearance can greatly influence behavior, identity development and relationships. It seems to me that social cues lacking in CMC and the individual cues seen in the Proteus Effect are both important, as they are great influential factors in the development of behavior and identity.


Discussion Questions

1. Has the lack of social cues in a computer mediated conversation ever been a problem for you? Though the text did not give any examples, how do you think the negative effects of reduced social cues can be avoided in CMC?
2. What are some of the similarities between the avatars in the Proteus Effect and online dating sites?
3. Do you think that one’s avatar identity can ultimately influence his/her identity outside of the virtual environment? Or do you think two separate behaviors will emerge?

Plagiarism in online personal profiles

A friend of mine once had her entire website (blog) design lifted by someone else. Sometimes students get in trouble for careless copy-and-pasting into a research paper. I'm not sure where plagiarism of online personal ads fits into this, but it's certainly a sign of our digital times. From the Wall Street Journal article:

Original souls who discover they have been replicated say it's unethical and creepy. "I came across a guy who completely STOLE my profile message," posts one woman in Michigan. "I mean he had to have copied and pasted the whole thing and then just changed gender specific things to fit his own!!"

Creepy but also somewhat humorous, I'd say. Of course, I did marry someone who borrowed an ad.

Romantic Relationships

Online dating sites have been recieving plenty of attention these days, Chances are, you have looked into it yourself. We hear that in these sites, especially from Dr. Phil, lie a lot of potential for finding that "special" someone. But what is it that people are actually looking for? What does it take fror someone to initiate conversation? This is what Hitsch, Hortacsu, and Ariely report in their article, "What Makes You Click: An Empirical Analysis of Online Dating." They conducted a three month anaylsis of people searching for hetersexual relationships in San Diego and Boston through a popular internet sating site in 2003. First, they hired college students to assign physical attractiveness to profile pictures. For profiles without pictures, they determined physical attractiveness through profile information like height, weight, etc.They were also able to tally how many times a profile or photo was visited. Here are some interesting findings:

-Attractive men and women are much more selective about who they will date.
-The median man (in terms of attractiveness) can expect to hear back from a median woman with a 40% chance, while the median woman can expect a reply with a 70% chance.
-People with college degrees are 35% more likely to recieve first contact messages.
-Women prefer the same ethnicity much more than men.
-Men have a significant distaste from women poorer than them, women have a significant distaste from men richer than them.
-Women have a strong preference from a man with equivalent education.
-39% of users state that they are looking for a "serious relationship"

Another article, posted in the New York Times titled, "Love in the Time of No Love," shed light on the less commital internet dating websites.

The article gave us some pretty practicl reasons on why people are turning to online dating. People are marrying later these days, leaving less potential for finding their soul mate in highschool or college. And how about the work place? Well, sexual harrasment issues make things too complicated now. More especially, people turn to online dating because of "the comfort of facts." This way, we don't have to ponder like we do in FTF communication about whether a man/woman fits our criteria when it comes to income, politics, etc. The only risk here, is meeting up with that paper perfect someone and seeing that they don't exactly look like the dream guy/lady in the photos- which is what most online daters say they have atleast one anecdote of.

Maybe that's one of the reasons internet dating is becoming more casual. Now, ther are sites for casual sex dates. People are using online dating sites to avoid commitment too. Hey, if there are sites like Match and EHarmony to find your soulmate, then why not a site to hook you up with some lusty fun?

Here are some questions for discussion:
1) Would you ever consider trying out a dating site like Match or EHarmony? From reading the first article, what outlook did it give you on internet dating sites ? Did you find more or less faith in them?

2) The second article is an easy read that takes into the life of a man that does more than just his share of casual internet dating. Based on his testimonial, and the information gathered in article one, what pros and cons do you see in internet dating?

3) What do you think lie in the future for internet dating sites?

4) any other comments?..

Identity On and Offline

Since Kassandra covered the Boyd and Heer Friendster study, I'll go ahead and highlight some topics that the book went over that will help us understand how people create identities in both offline and online environments.
Identity acts as a sort of symbolic marker in a two-fold sort of way. First- our identity is how we want to be seen by others and second-our identity is how others actually see us. While scholars have traditionally described identity to be a fixed part of our nature, more modern arguments tend to define identity as an ongoing process, fluid and flexible. This description of identity has become particularly relevant upon the advent of the internet and CMC. Where identity had been previously defined by physical appearance (race, class, religion), in an virtual online community, these traits are made invisible, thereby avoiding any sort of social hierarchies that dominant ideologies have constructed. With the construction of online identies, people are able to choose different symbolic markers to represent who you are. For example, simply from reading a person's Facebook profile (hometown, political views, favorite things, etc.) we can get a pretty goo idea of what type of person they are (or so we think). When constructing such an online profile, we are able to choose various symbolic markers (ie. pictures, quotes, favorites) to piece together a representation of ourselves. Daniel Chandler refers to this process as bricolage.
Sherry Turkle suggests that online identities are a sort of "second-self"-- a self that is anonymous and disembodied. Because of this anonymity and disembodiment, people are able to have further control over how they wish to be seen online and offers more room for identity play, or acting as something you are not.
In conclusion, it has become evident that identity can no longer be described as a fixed and an inherent part of our nature, especially within CMC. Identity in all forms is a performance that we create as a way of offering others a way to view us.
With this in mind, here are some possible discussion questions:

1. Do you consider online identities real? What are the factors that constitute a "real" identity. How has CMC challenged the traditional definitions of identity?
2. Is online identity more controllable than offline identity? If so, in what ways? What are some positive and negative aspects of controlling identity in an online environment?

Friendster and the problems that arose

(Post by Kassandra, who due to technical difficulties, is unable to post to the blog)

FRIENDSTER and the problems that arose.

The first reading discussed the ways in which Friendster enabled interaction between other individuals. It briefly discussed FtF communication and came to the conclusion that FfF could create more appropriate contexts to communicate. It expressed ideas similar to that of previous class readings. Communication through Friendster seemed difficult to evaluate because it challenged the forms of traditional communication.

Firstly, they argue that CMC does not provide an identifiable audience; as sometimes individuals will write on blogs and there is no way of knowing who, if anyone will attend to these blogs. Secondly, they argue that 'essential contextual cues' are missing from conversations, such as facial expressions or someone's tone of voice. Thirdly, they argue that the nature of Friendster is simultaneously public and private, which is also something that traditional forms of communication have never experienced.

The study points out how pictures, profile descriptions and friend testimonials may be used to makeup for the cues lost from FtF. These problems are also made more resolvable as the digital communication moves to real life and vice versa.

The reading also brings up a very relevant problem with Friendster communication; and that is the merging of the workplace and the 'pub setting'. Obviously people act differently with their friends than they might with their bosses or co-workers. In FtF this can be mediated, whereas in CMC, your profile is viewable to anyone you accept as a friend. (How can you deny acceptance to a boss?)

On ONLINE DATING

This article highlights the importance of self-presentation and self-disclosure in all forms of communication and it highlights how this is possible through dating sites. The article argues that dating sites allow for a much more strategic planning of expressing your information, which is something we discussed in class. People can edit their profiles constantly and mold themselves to appear to be whatever personality they would like.

The study argued that we have "three domains of the self" and that the internet allows for a better representation of these selves.

- the actual self : attributes an individual possesses
- the ideal self : attributes an individual would ideally possess
- the ought self : attributes an individual ought to possess

A study found that because of this precise molding of personality, many aspects of identities were misinterpreted, 'most commonly age (14%), marital status (10%), and appearance (10%)'. The article discussed how people created an 'ideal self', and how other users were able to identify when someone was being honest and what techniques they would use to attract their target daters.

Similarly, the final article reflected on the large problem of false identity. It mentions that 66% of the people who use online dating believe it to be dangerous in some way. However, as online dating has become more and more successful, people are more willing to try it. There are various testimonials and various examples of couples who have emerged through online dating sites, and so, more and more people are drawn to participate in it.

Like many of the studies on CMC, a major issue that arose on the online dating websites in Madden's article, is that of a false representation of a self. Many of their statistics back this up; nonetheless, those genuinely seeking working relationships are less likely to lie, as they seek lifelong partners to love them for being them.

Possible discussion questions:

1. Have you ever found it difficult to address someone through a social networking site? Not knowing what words to use, what to say? Do you find it more difficult that addressing someone FtF?
2. All of us have a profile on a social networking website. Do you agree that it is easier for us to establish our "three domains of self", and to what extent do you feel that being able to communicate these online have made it easier for you to present yourself in FtF communication?
3. Elison, Heino and Gibbs' article on online dating discusses how users pay close attention to spelling and sentence completion to evaluate a person's education or dedication level. What other cues can you think that you have used to establish when a person is lying or when evaluating if you would like to pursue a further friendship?
4. Using the arguments and statistics discussed in Madden's article on online dating, consider whether you would ever participate in online dating. Why, or why not?

Super week of superlative laden super days (aka Language and Impression Formation)

Greetings, and happy Superbowl Sunday (which happens to be 2 days before Super Tuesday). Sorry for the delayed post, it's been a busy time around here. Anyway, getting down to business...

This week's readings studied the use of language in CMC and how it differs when compared to FtF. TLT's chapter on language focused on several primary issues, including resistance to new forms of internet-based language, or 'netspeak'; the existence of speech communities, both in society and online; the dominance of English as a language on the internet; and finally, netspeak as a language.

TLT opened their chapter with the claim that many media outlets believe that new technologies have been dramatically changing languages, to the point where they are destroying proper language. TLT argue that language cannot be destroyed by webspeak or any other type of language because it is, in essence, its own language. TLT argue that there is nothing inherent in language that makes one language better or worse than any other language, rather it is a matter of social convention that some languages are looked down upon.

TLT next looked at dominance of English as a language on the internet and the existence of the digital divide between rich and poor nations. While English no longer maintains its complete dominance over the web, it still accounts for over 35% of the websites on the internet. Other developed countries are catching up to English speaking countries in terms of web-content, however there is still a disproportionate amount of web-content in English. This has led to some resistance to the dominance of English, as some people feel that smaller, less well known languages need to be protected from an ever-shrinking world.

Finally, there is netspeak and netlingo... TLT discusses the growth of netlingo in the English language. netlingo includes but is not limited to abbreviating words or using acronyms (TLT, FtF, CMC, etc.) lack of capitalization and punctuation and using word blends like netlingo. also, spelling isnt concidered too bee improtant. (Basically, this entire paragraph). Netspeak is very similar, only it is used more often in synchronous CMC, like our discussion last Wednesday.

That's enough of TLT, on to Walther... (I'll keep it brief)

Walther focused on emoticons, which we went over in pretty good detail last week. The study was fairly interesting, so I suggest you read it... basic argument is that CMC lacks verbal cues, therefore we use emoticons :)

Now for some fun:

Acronyms so you don't feel like an idiot when in a chat room

What if the internet were to disappear tomorrow, oh wait, it did last week

Finally... we're almost there...


Questions for possible discussion:
1) How has internet jargon (webspeak) spread to the mainstream?
2) TLT also argue that people using one language tend to organize around each other, forming a speech community. This works fairly easily FtF, but is it possible in CMC?
3) Do you see the dominance of English on the web as a problem in a globalizing world? If so, how can it be combated?
4) Anything I may have missed that you feel was important from the readings.

Media Richness and Self Disclosure

This week’s readings shed light on the trade offs between face-to-face conversation (FtF) and the developing computer mediated communication (CMC). From CMC as solely a medium for the transmission of data and email in its early years, we have now warped it to create our own unique community, adhering to various societal needs. Last week we discussed in class how we feel text based communication is impersonal and we only practice it for our convenience. We have already identified these limitations such as non-verbal cues, which at times disclose more about a communicator and conversation than the actual words being spoken. Interestingly, the readings pointed out that because of the lack of non-verbal cues, CMC communicators rely heavily on minimal cues and eventually engage in expression that cannot be done through FtF. I can think of various examples that we use via facebook, aim, or other blog/networking sites, such as the common happy faces, the “hehe”, overemphasis on text using “!”, and text slang like, “kewl.” Through this expression, we save ourselves from becoming a transactional being like the computer. The new ways of expression we create through CMC shape our individuality.
On the other hand, the readings noted that through CMC communicators strengthen their decision-making process, rationality, and increased task orientation all through a transactional process. Surprisingly, the anonymity of a CMC group creates greater cohesiveness. Here there is a greater distribution of group member communication, and a lack of dominance or charisma between members that create effective CMC groups. With these barriers that we find in common FtF communication absent, communicators in CMC have significantly higher levels of self disclosure and hyperpersonality (psychological processes that exceed FtF interpersonal communication). This we saw happen in the chat rooms on Wednesday. Anonymity allows one to comfortably express their true self, which is why we saw people randomly disclose their likes and dislikes in a wide range of topics in the chat rooms. The notion of hyperpersonality, was clearly illustrated in the dialog between Dark Mystery and The Flame, where Dark Mystery said something along the lines of , “The Flame looks at the ground and sees a hose..” The creativity here wouldn’t normally be used in FtF conversation.

Some questions I have for discussion are:

1. How do you feel about the inevitable over reliance on minimal cues that we use to get to know communicators through CMC? Do you find it a hassle, impractical, or convenient? How do you rely on these cues?

2. Research shows that long term CMC groups have less attraction and affinity if they see a still picture of a fellow communicator. Why do you think this is?

3. The readings reveal how CMC groups are task effective. Our last reading discussed collective action through CMC. Do you think collective action movements via CMC have a better chance than through FtF communication?

CMC and Collective Action

The readings for this week generally defined computer mediated communication and the topics with which CMC research is concerned. One topic which continually came up was the revolutionarily interactive nature of CMC, and the new ways in which humans are communicating because of it. Individuals are now able to express and discuss their ideas and opinions in a highly organized, real-time structure that promotes rationality. Power is decentralized, and without the pressure of external forces that might be found offline (distance, social pressure, time, government…) great power is given to the masses. People have twisted this power into many different forms, nevertheless the internet has changed the way we live by giving us new ways to communicate as well as the place in which to gather, debate, test our ideas and opinions, and form the launching pad for collective action. There have been cases already in which people have demonstrated the power CMC gives us. Below are links to a few notable events that were greatly impacted by CMC. I’m linking to Wikipedia as just one more example of how CMC is changing the way we aggregate and access information.

- Incident in the Philippines in which email and text messages were able to mobilize thousands and peacefully overthrow President Joseph Estrada.

- Warblogging during the second gulf war revolutionized war reporting, holding governments highly accountable for their actions.

- ‘Rathergate’ scandal in which the blogging community stood toe to toe with the CBS corporation in exposing forgeries presented as news, resulting in the resignation of several of CBS’ top officials.

My question to the class is: do you think this kind of collective action will continue to take place on the internet? If so how might emerging technologies assist or hinder our ability to do so?

Syllabus

... because it doesn't hurt to have another copy on our course blog. Click here for the latest version, though.

Communication 321: Communication in the Virtual Group
Spring 2008 M W 10:00 – 11:50 in ASC 240

Instructor: Elaine Chan
Office: Ph.D. Office
Hours: M W 12:00 – 1:00, and by appointment

Course Description

Over the course of the semester we will be examining the social and psychological effects of computer-mediated communication and its associated technologies and cultures. The readings in the course include individual, group, and community-level phenomenon, and often are empirically-based. The goal of the course is to provide the student a broad overview of theories and research concerning communication online.

Course Materials

Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., and Tomic, A. (2004) Computer-Mediated Communication: Social Interaction and the Internet. Los Angeles: Sage. You can purchase it online at Amazon.com and elsewhere.

Other required readings (mostly articles) will be made available to you via Blackboard or hyperlinks. Assigned readings are subject to change – please check the schedule of classes regularly for the most updated version.

Components of the Course Grade:

· Blog posts and comments – personal posts based on course readings on assigned weeks (300-500 words) 16% and comments on other students’ postings on other weeks 16% [course blog]

· Assignments – four, 1-2 page assignments 30% [assignments]

· Class participation - based on contributions to in-class discussion 10%

· Final paper – students will have the opportunity to do research on an online medium or community of their choice, 8-10 pages 28%

Blog Postings and Comments: Students will sign up for assigned weeks (3 or 4) on which they will submit blog post commentaries on the readings for the upcoming week (300-500 words). Good commentaries will:

- focus on all of the readings for the upcoming week

- do not merely summarize, but focus instead on an evaluating the readings

- identify 3-4 questions for discussion during the class meeting

(focus on the papers’ key issues, strengths and limitations, and a comparison to previous weeks’ readings).

Postings should be made to the class blog by 10pm on the Friday before we will discuss the assigned readings.

On other (unassigned) weeks, each student should post comments (min. 125 words) to their fellow students’ blog commentary. Excellent comments can offer a critique of that week’s posting, seek clarification, compare or contrast postings, or provide additional evidence or new information (such as a link to a related article, website, etc.).

Each student must contribute a minimum of 15 comments. Students can earn credit for a maximum of two comments each week.

Class Participation: Good participation in class discussion extremely similar to good comments in a blog thread, without a specific word limitation. Note that you must attend class in order to participate.

Final Paper: Throughout the semester you will be tracking one or two online sites / communities that are interesting to you. Your paper should include both material from the course readings and independent research in your analysis of the site. More information about final paper specifications will be provided later in the semester.

Academic Integrity Policy

The School of Communication is committed to the highest standards of academic excellence and ethical support. It endorses and acts on the school policies and procedures detailed in the SCampus section titled: "University Student Conduct Code." See especially Appendix A: "Academic Dishonesty Sanction Guidelines." The policies, procedures, and guidelines will be assiduously upheld. They protect your rights, as well as those of the faculty. It is particularly important that you are aware of and avoid plagiarism, cheating on exams, fabricating data for a project, submitting the same paper to more than one professor, or submitting a paper authored by anyone but yourself. If you have questions about any of these matters, confer with the instructor.

Academic Accommodation based on Disability

Any student requesting academic accommodation based on a disability is required to register with Disability Services and Programs (DSP) each semester. A letter of verification for approved accommodations can be obtained from DSP. Please be sure the letter is delivered to the instructor as early in the semester as possible. DSP is located in STU 301 and is open 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The phone number for DSP is (213) 740-0776.

Schedule of Classes

MONDAY JANUARY 14
INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE

WEDNESDAY JANUARY 16
ONLINE COMMUNICATION MEDIA

· Scholz, T. (2007). A history of the social web.

· Pew Internet and American Life: Activities Americans Have Ever Done Online.

· Activities Americans Do Each Day

MONDAY JANUARY 21
NO CLASS

WEDNESDAY JANUARY 23

CMC AS NEW TECHNOLOGY

· TLT, pages 1-7, 14-33, 75-79, 163-169, 181-186, 228-231 Click for readings

MONDAY JANUARY 28

MEDIA RICHNESS

· TLT, pages 45-57

· Walther, J.B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.[PDF]

** ASSIGNMENT # 1 DUE **

WEDNESDAY JANUARY 30

SELF DISCLOSURE

· Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity.

MONDAY FEBRUARY 4

LANGUAGE

· TLT, pages 118-128

· Walther, J. B., & D'Addario, K. P. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19 (3), 323-345.

· Browse NetLingo The Internet Dictionary

WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 6

IMPRESSION FORMATION

· Jacobson, D. (1999). Impression formation in cyberspace: Online expectations and offline experiences in text-based virtual communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5, http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol5/issue1/jacobson.html

MONDAY FEBRUARY 11

IDENTITY / SELF-REPRESENTATION

· TLT, pages 95-106

· Boyd, D. & Heer, J. (2006) Profiles as conversation: Networked identity performance on Friendster.

http://www.danah.org/papers/HICSS2006.pdf

· Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/ellison.html

WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 13

ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS I

· TLT, pages 137-142.

· Madden, M. & Lenhart, A. (2006). Online Dating. Pew Internet & American Life. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Online_Dating.pdf

MONDAY FEBRUARY 18

NO CLASS

WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 20

ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS II

· Hitch, G., Hortacsu, A. & Ariely, D. (2006). What makes you click: An empirical analysis of online dating.

http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2006/0106_0800_0502.pdf

· Egan, J. (2003). Love in the time of no time. New York Times Magazine.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE1D71138F930A15752C1A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

MONDAY FEBRUARY 25

REDUCED SOCIAL CUES

· TLT, pages 58-80

· Yee, N. & Bailenson, J.N. (2007). The Proteus Effect: The Effect of Transformed Self-Representation on Behavior. Human Communication Research, 33, 271-290.

WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 27

ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR

· TLT, pages 148-159

· Wikipedia article on Megan Meier suicide controversy

· Zetter, K. (2007). Cyberbullying suicide stokes the Internet fury machine. Wired. http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/11/vigilante_justice

and follow-up

MONDAY MARCH 3

ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR II

· Foo, C.Y. & Koivisto, E.M.I. (2004). Defining grief play in MMORPGS: Player and developer perceptions. ACM International Conference Proceedings.

· Anderssen, E. (2007, September 7). Frontier justice: Can virtual worlds be civilized? Globe and Mail.

** ASSIGNMENT # 2 DUE **

WEDNESDAY MARCH 5

COMPULSIVE USE

· Griffiths, M. (2000). Does internet and computer “addiction” exist? Some case study evidence. CyberPsychology & Behavior. 3(2), 211-218.

· Payne, J.W. (2006, November 14). Caught in the web: More people say heavy internet use is disrupting their lives, and medical experts are paying attention.

· Clark, N. (2007). WTF is game addiction?

MONDAY MARCH 10

COOPERATION

· Jensen, C., Farnham, S., Drucker, S., & Kollock, P. (2000). The effect of communication modality on cooperation in online environments. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Proceedings, 470-477.

WEDNESDAY MARCH 12

RELATIONSHIP QUALITY

· Cummings, J., Butler, B., & Kraut, R. (2002). The quality of online social relationships. Communications of the ACM, 45(7), 103-108.

MONDAY MARCH 17 & WEDNESDAY MARCH 19

NO CLASS – SPRING RECESS

MONDAY MARCH 24

SOCIAL NETWORKING

· Boyd, D. & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

WEDNESDAY MARCH 26

SOCIAL NETWORKING

· Rosen, C. (2007). Virtual friendship and the new narcissism. The New Atlantis. Summer 2007, 15-31.

· Doctorow, C. (2007). How your creepy ex-co-workers will kill Facebook. Information Week.

** ASSIGNMENT # 3 DUE **

MONDAY MARCH 31

PRIVACY

· Rainie, L., Horrigan, J., Lenhart, A., Spooner, T., Carter, C., (2000). Trust and privacy online: Why Americans want to rewrite the rules. Pew Internet & American Life Project.

http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Trust_Privacy_Report.pdf

· Barnes, S. B. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday, 11(9), http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_9/barnes/index.html

WEDNESDAY APRIL 2

ONLINE COMMUNITY I

· Baym, N. (1998). The emergence of on-line community. In S. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting computer-mediated communication and community, (pp. 35-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

MONDAY APRIL 7

ONLINE COMMUNITY II

· Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A. Q., Boase, J., Chen, W., Hampton, K., de Diaz, I. I., et al. (2003). The social affordances of the Internet for networked individualism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(3), http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue3/wellman.html

WEDNESDAY APRIL 9

SOCIAL WELLNESS

· Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook "friends:" Social capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html

MONDAY APRIL 14

PLAYING TOGETHER

· Steinkuehler, C. A., and Williams, D. (2006). Where everybody knows your (screen) name: Online games as "third places." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue4/steinkuehler.html

** ASSIGNMENT # 4 DUE **

WEDNESDAY APRIL 16

PLAYING TOGETHER II

· Wired Travel Guide: Second Life (2006)

· My virtual life. (2006). Business Week.

MONDAY APRIL 21

THE VIRTUAL COMMONS

· Kollock, P. & Smith, M. (1996) Managing the virtual commons: Cooperation and conflict in computer communities.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/vcommons.htm

WEDNESDAY APRIL 23

THE EVERYDAY INTERNET

· Ling, R. & Yttri, B. (2002). Hypercoordination. In J. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.) Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

· Bakardjieva, M. and Smith, R. (2001). The Internet in Everyday Life. New Media and Society 3(1) 67-83.

MONDAY APRIL 28

REVIEW

WEDNESDAY APRIL 30

** FINAL PAPER DUE **