Session 2

Impressions

It’s fascinating to see how opinions about online communities have changed over the last decade. The older articles from this session provided interesting food for thought. For example, the article by Galston, “Does the Internet Strengthen Community?” pointed out that some researchers argued that, “…because the absence of visual and tonal cues makes it more difficult to see the pain words can inflict, the Internet reduces restraints on verbal behavior.” (Galston, 2000)

On the social networking sites I am a member of, or on forums I sometimes lurk on, I have noticed that when arguments get heated, there tends to be a no-holds-barred session of verbal sparring filled with invective harsh enough to make even Mel Gibson step back and say, “Woah, over the line mate.” Galston does continue on to say there is a lack of evidence that Internet speech is more antisocial than real world interactions (an observation that I try to remember when evaluating online interactions).

Although parts of the article were interesting, some of Galston’s conclusions about on-line groups were a little gloomier than necessary. My personal observations of on-line groups led me to disagree with Galston’s conclusions that internet interactions lead to voices not being developed, authority not being recognized, and there not being a sense of mutual obligation in online interactions. From 1999 through 2001 I was a member of a forum on a website dedicated to ghost story enthusiasts. At first much of the talk was strictly an exchange of supernatural tales of wonderment. But soon, regular contributors grew comfortable with each other and details about people’s everyday lives would leak into the conversations. Posters grew comfortable enough to discuss their problems, ask for advice, tell jokes, share recipes, and generally do the things that people in an offline community do.

I think there was a sense of mutual obligation that arose from these online interactions. Frequent contributors eventually became forum moderators based on votes by forum members. Those that became moderators won because they had developed a “voice” on the forum. These moderators were the recognized authorities of that particular online community. There was a quote in the LaRose article “Social Cognitive Explanations of Internet Use and Depression” that stated, “…even media lacking in nonverbal cues, including text-based e-mail on the Internet, may foster supportive relationships over time.” (LaRose, 2001) I tend to think this is true.

Other than the above quote, the most compelling thing in the LaRose article was the suggestion that new users of the Internet be offered support before they get too frustrated and give up on learning how to use it. Often, the library is the only place where certain kinds of communities are able to access the Internet. Because users from these communities might not be able to frequently access the Internet, there is the possibility their learning will suffer from the “years of unproductive effort,” warned about in the article. (LaRose,2001)

“The cost of (anti-)social networks: Identity, agency and neo-luddites” author Ryan Bigge included a great quote from another article that essentially said time spent on social networks like MySpace and Facebook turned free time into something that can be monitored and sold. Facebook and MySpace ask us to fill out profiles—ostensibly for the purpose of informing our friends—detailing our hobbies, likes and dislikes, jobs, and all kinds of other information. Although the information voluntarily put up on these sites is being sold to marketers, do users even worry about things like that?

I enjoyed the article “Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance” by Anders Albrechtslund. My usage of certain social networking sites is as, “…a way of maintaining friendships by checking up on information other people share.” (Albrechtslund, 2008) I have a lot of friends that come from different parts of the world; using social networks to keep in touch allows us to keep in touch in a much more convenient, up-to-date way. We undergo “participatory surveillance” because it allows our friends and family convenient ways to check up on us and make sure we’re doing ok.

There are some risks to keeping information about ourselves online, but Albrechtslund made a great point when he wrote, “…we should not let the awareness of these threats take over when we study online social networking.” (Albrechtslund, 2008) Online social networking will, and possibly already has shifted our attitudes toward surveillance in general. If we are going to be watched, we might as well make those watching see what WE want them to see. Empowering exhibitionism!

The last article I read was the one by Linton Weeks that described an internet community’s reaction to the Tweet of a bipolar woman venting about her toddler. Though the woman claims she was only venting, the community still found her comments disconcerting enough to have the FBI check up on her. My personal reaction to a Tweet like that, because I have no children and my heart is as cold as ice, would probably be to write it off as venting. Weeks points out that, “…people will respond to people who sound like they are in trouble—online or off.” (Weeks, 2008)

This leads me to the question inspired by the readings, "Will people respond to requests for help and will those responses be positive or negative in nature?"

Question

Because I didn't have much time this week to personally create a new account with a social networking site, I chose to comb a forum for examples that might answer my questions. Online gamers can be incredibly mean when it comes to newcomers. I selected a forum geared toward new players of the popular online game World of Warcraft. I randomly clicked on a link, slightly fearful that I would see a poor, helpless player being flamed into oblivion by experienced players.

What I found genuinely surprised me. Rather than posts deriding the player for being less experienced with the game, high-level players actually offered constructive advice in a non-judgmental manner. By helping a new player learn the game, the experienced users helped the player not to get stuck expending "unproductive effort." LaRose mentioned mentors for new Internet users as a necessary part of keeping them interested in learning how to use it; perhaps the same concept holds true in the online gaming world too.

This study could not have been done with material gathered offline because it's from an online forum from an online game. Furthermore, the same sampling of people from around the world, with the same interest in the same game, wouldn't have practical to obtain from offline sources. I'm interested in doing further studies on the social networks created through online gaming as the brief times I've spent in them have allowed me to meet an incredibly varied sampling of people.

Click to go to forum.

The World of Warcraft forums are consistently moderated by paid moderators, and though the post I link to doesn't have any moderator action in it, I suspect the comity displayed within is an indirect result of users being made to follow rules set up by Blizzard.

Bibliography

Galston, William A. (2000). Does the Internet Strengthen Community? National Civic Review 89(3), 193-202.

Weeks, Linton (2009). Social Responsibility and the Web: A Drama Unfolds. 8 January 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99094257

LaRose, R., M.S. Eastin and J. Gregg (2001). Reformulating the Internet Paradox: Social Cognitive Explanations of Internet Use and Depression. Journal of Online Behavior 1(2). http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n2/paradox.html

Albrechtslund, Anders (2008). Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance. First Monday 13(3). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2142/1949

Bigge, Ryan (2006). The Cost of (Anti-) Social Networks: Identity, Agency and Neo-Luddites" First Monday 11(12). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1421/1339

Interesting to Me: A look at the roots of social networking

Social networking has been around for longer than you think! Fantastic article by the BBC that describes how an early online message board was born.

Link to the article by BBC Technology Correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12224588

If you're looking for something to listen to, he's also doing a series of radio shows over the next three weeks that trace the roots of social networking.

Click here to give it a listen:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y5jgf

Interesting to Me

Does Facebook have a negative effect on marriages?

This article by U.K. paper The Daily Mail takes a look at the impact Facebook has on married couples. Social networking sites DO facilitate easier contact with exes and people that catch our eye, so I can certainly see how it could cause problems for married couples. I guess the next time I go out with a lady I'll ask her if she uses Twitter, rather than Facebook to gauge if there's potential for a relationship. :P

Social media users more likely to volunteer?

The Pew Internet & American Life Project just released an interesting study regarding social media and volunteer work. Enjoy!

RSS Readers/Aggregators

Greetings loved ones.

I was curious and wanted to know what kind of RSS readers people are using for this class. I'm currently using Google reader, but am open to other suggestions. So far, Google reader hasn't been too bad and the availability of an app for Android-based cellphones is kind of nice.

What's your favorite RSS reader?

Session 1

Still getting back into the school mode, so please bear with me.
----------------------
I was watching CNN when the story of the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords first broke. While saddened by the senseless violence committed that day, I wasn’t surprised that something like it had happened. Certain media outlets have been fostering a climate of fear and paranoia to such an extent that I felt it was only a matter of time before an unhinged person lost it.

It wasn’t long before questions were asked about what motivated Jared Lee Loughner to act out in the way he did. Speculation still runs rampant, with some blaming a lack of treatment for supposed mental illness, while others blame violent rhetoric used by political commentators as motivating factors. The “Mainstreaming of private information posted to the public domain,” section of the rather forward-thinking article by David Beers and Roger Burrows came to mind when I heard people were checking Loughner’s accounts on social networking sites.

Often without giving it much thought, people reveal surprisingly personal information on social networking sites. This openness, coupled with a lack of awareness/caring toward securing their information, makes social networking sites such as Facebook ripe sources of information for interested parties. Beers and Burrows note that, “…the emphasis appears to be about revealing as much information as possible in line with the projected image that the user wishes to cultivate.” (Beers, 2007) The image cultivated by Loughner, from paranoid ranting to YouTube videos of him burning an American flag, to me, is of a severely troubled, violent lunatic.

I found a link to a tech blog that discussed the role of social media in this tragedy. The author of this particular blog entry, Violet Blue, makes a great observation, “The shooter’s media manifestos are online in lurid detail. Getting to know Loughner is so easy, it feels surreal.”(Blue, 2011) In an attempt to understand Loughner’s motivation for his violent acts, people naturally flocked to his social networking sites. According to the author, social media was a useful way to help people cope with the tragedy:

Social media provides community for strangers, where people can share the thoughts that need sharing. We collectively find ambient intimacy in times of pain. The coming together social media can provide helps us stay human in the face of inhuman monsters that murder little girls over the ideology of a nation’s flag. (Blue,2011)

Many people have focused on how incorrect information regarding Congresswoman Giffords death was spread via social networks in the hours immediately following the shooting, but not much focus has been put on how these same networks are helping people cope.

In the Online Dabases-Web 2.0 article, the best point made was this one, “When advertising and public relations are disguised as news, the line between fact and fiction becomes blurred. Instead of more community, knowledge, or culture, all that Web 2.0 really delivers is more dubious content from anonymous sources.” (Tenopir, 2007) From the screen names he chose, it seems like Loughner was influenced by views commonly held by the Tea Party. The beliefs of Tea Partiers, at least in my experience, tend to be based on hearsay, half-baked conspiracy theories, and Fox News talking points. The point Keene made about “dubious content from anonymous sources” struck a chord with me. Anyone can make up facts, throw them into the whirlpool of social networking sites, and watch as their misinformation spreads. Perhaps Loughner was influenced by “dubious content” and acted based on said content.

The article Blogging as Social Activity, or, Would You Let 900 Million People Read Your Diary? discusses how some users think by writing and use blog posts to release emotional tension. That Loughner was thinking through his writing is somewhat obvious, as his posts read like train-of-thought rants lacking in structure or coherence. His videos and postings seem to be a way to release emotional tension, but I believe in this case, Loughner used them as ways to psych himself up for a bigger release, the one we unfortunately witnessed on the news. “It was the release of emotional tension with an audience that was especially powerful for bloggers.” (Nardi, 2004) I know many people that utilize blogs as ways to vent their frustrations, fears and concerns, and am saddened that Loughner couldn’t vent out his craziness online and leave it at that.

Bridging the Gap: A Genre Analysis of Weblogs, discussed how blogs, “allow authors to experience social interaction while giving them control over the communication space.” (Herring, 2004) It's this kind of control over communication that allows people like Loughner to feel comfortable enough to post their crazy out there for everyone to see. Social networking sites sometimes allow people with extreme beliefs to grow comfortable enough to form groups that become echo chambers of crazy.

My definition of social networking, so far, involves groups communicating through some kind of website to discuss shared interests and activities. Social networking can involve not only blogs, twitter, and the like, but online video games, and YouTube.



News Links:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/perlow/the-giffords-tragedy-and-social-media/15483


Class Readings:

Beer, David and Roger Burrows (2007). Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: Some Initial Considerations. Sociological Research Online 12(5). http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/5/17.html

Herring, Susan C., Lois Ann Scheidt, Sabrina Bonus and Elijah Wright (2004). Bridging the Gap: A Genre Analysis of Weblogs. Proceedings of the 37th Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-37).

Tenopir, Carol (2007). Web 2.0: Our Cultural Downfall? Library Journal, 12/15/2007. http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6510681.html?industryid=47130

Nardi, Bonnie A., Diane Schiano and Michelle Gumbrecht (2004). Blogging as Social Activity, or, Would You Let 900 Million People Read Your Diary? CSCWÕ04, November 6Ð10, 2004, Chicago, Illinois.

First Post

"Social computing..."