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.