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:
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
3 comments:
1. I have found it difficult, at times to address someone through a communications channel on a social-networking site. It is always difficult to gauge the tone in text-based communication. It is certainly easier to do somethings face-to-face, while it may not be as convenient as simply posting a message, it is more likely to get my actual point across.
2. I think it is easier to represent yourself as the person that you want to be on a social networking site. While this person may not be radically different from the actual person that you are, those slight differences can help make a person feel more comfortable with themselves. Personally, I haven't noticed how my online persona (facebook) has made me different or how I have changed my FtF communication habits. I'm sure there are cases of this occurring, I just don't believe myself to be one of them.
The friendster article brought up several unfortunate incidents with the social networking site. I normally would think that young teens develop personal/social drama issues and concerns through networking sites, so it was interesting to see the problems that can arise in the business world. Fortunately, I have never encountered any such problems.
I think the key here is use it but don't abuse it. I find it easier to address someone through myspace or facebook because of the convenience, briefness, and I feel that my profile gives me some credibility. And if you think about it, we all know people who "over do" their profiles- people who seem introverted in person, but who have flashy internet profiles. My point is that how you design your profile, the quantity, can say a lot about you. Hence, having an impact over how people read your messages/communication acts via the site.
Thank goodness for internet profiles. It's a second identity- one that we turn to in discreteness. Profiles are an extremely convenient way of letting others get to know us, making more friends with similar interests, and feeling s sense of identity. Thus having a better sense of who we are, even online, i believe could only facilitate FtF communication.
1. I often find it more difficult to address someone through a social networking site, and I think it is mainly because of the lack of physical cues in CMC. It is more difficult to read what the person's feeling and sometimes to communicate my own thoughts.
2. I think it is easier to present our "three domains of self" on social networking sites because you would have more control of what you want to reveal about yourself. For example, you can control what pictures to upload and edit your personal interests in music, movies, etc. I think personal profiles in social networking sites can effect how you present yourself if F2F communication, as the practice of presenting yourself in CMC will cause you to be more aware of your identity.
3. In addition to spelling and sentence structures, I think response time and the lenght of the response also act as cues in CMC.
Post a Comment