Session 2

While I was living overseas, I knew of other Americans who coped with culture shock for the first few months by holing themselves up in their rooms, immersed in their own social networks back home. They didn’t go out much and occasionally would lament, “I just don’t have anything in common with the people around me.” For one, the majority of real-life people surrounding them spoke in a language foreign to them, and for another, the handful of people who did speak English came from all walks of life and backgrounds. They weren’t really into the idea of friendships/community by accident of proximity, which Galston (2000) wants us to think, is really not so bad. It would have been healthy for these people to reach out to others, not to mention lessen the effects of culture shock; tons of articles have been written on the emotional and mental health benefits of a real-life, good old-fashioned friendship. I am now friends with one of those people who started out that way, and we found out eventually that we did have a lot in common.

What’s so persuasive about Galston’s article is that he starts out with the example of television, and how destructive it has been to American society. Before, we used to let our children roam the streets and play until evening, but now that’s been replaced by television and violent video games. We don’t know our neighbors and communities anymore; they have become depersonalized to the extent that we may actually fear them (while watching the evening news we may have good reason to be). In a prophetic manner, he is warning us of the further damage our society could be doing to itself by being ‘duped’ into this notion that we are fostering communities online.

I for one, believe that it may be too early to tell. He gave one example of how online communities were useful, with one ‘lone archivist in a city library system’ but didn’t give examples of how online communities have actually been life-affirming for traditionally marginalized and oppressed groups. Perhaps because it would have contradicted his argument entirely.

By noting that “text is an impoverished medium for communicating emotion, intent, real meaning,” Weeks (2009) concurs with Galston’s overall thesis, and brings up a drastic point using the mother who had threatened her baby’s life (or so it appeared) on Twitter. Is this what Albrechtslund (2008) had in mind when he suggested that surveillance could be potentially empowering? On the contrary, the mother’s own self-surveillance had turned into self-incrimination, when the police showed up on her doorstep.

There was very little I agreed with in this article. Although Albrechtslund, and even Galston, say that these communities are non-hierarchical and based on mutuality, I have spent enough time in online communities to observe that they are not. For example, I have been in virtual worlds where my female avatars were outright harassed and humiliated by male avatars. Now I take on a male avatar if I want to freely enjoy what certain VWs have to offer. This is not empowerment (Galston would point out that it is an example of loss of “voice”). Gender inequality aside, what about the hierarchy that exists between longtime users and “newbies” in online communities? It is almost military-style protocol that newbies have to follow to avoid being ostracized. Or the folks that consistently dominate message boards, intimidating and silencing those who are afraid to post comments? Are these not examples of hierarchy?

Out of the all of the articles, possibly the one that resonated with me the most is Rosen’s (2007). Rather than empowering users, according to Rosen, self-made profiles encourage narcissism, deception, falsification of oneself. “One’s entrée into this world generally isn’t through a virtual neighborhood or community but through the revelation of personal information.” Users of SNSs peer pressure their friends and family into joining and actively participating in them. By not participating you give off the impression that you’re someone who just doesn’t care about the lives of your friends and families, nevermind worries about privacy and other issues.

Bigge (2006) is in agreement with Rosen over the notion that a lot of us are practically forced into these social networks, by peer pressure or perhaps a force more powerful (like a snazzy interface, perhaps?). And once you’re in, accumulating a ton of friends can become a major goal, although I do have to say that it varies from person to person and depends heavily on the users’ real-life personalities. A lot of my more outgoing friends have near or surpassed 1,000 friends on Facebook, while the more quieter types have less than 100.

Bigge brings up a really good point about how users of SNSs provide free labor and free advertising to these companies, simply by their usage. One company turned this idea into a real charity, which I noticed that none of the articles addressed, and so I went to investigate this: 

The image I commented on:

How I and others responded (and made money for charity, apparently):

Although toilet humor abounds on this one website, its actual mission is not something to laugh about. Simply by visiting and using the site, which relies heavily upon advertisements, you can make money for charity (I can already feel some jaded/suspicious people rolling their eyes, I know, but I still think that the idea itself is great). From one visit, by the time I had finished browsing, I made around 5 cents in 10 minutes for New Orleans Habitat for Humanity, just by commenting on others pictures and clicking on various internal pages. 1.1 cents is donated each time you write 140 characters or upload a picture. If you're interested in participating, just be careful if they ask for credit card or phone numbers, but I think clicking on things and uploading images is safe enough...

To raise funds in the past I have: answered telephones, stood for hours selling cookies, held signs in the hot sun, washed cars, wore strange outfits, bugged all my friends and relatives to buy expensive coupons, etc. This was by far the easiest way for me to raise money. I don't think I would've been able to replicate this experience in real-life.

Session 1

A complete bibliography of references in blog posts can be found here: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~gazan/ICS691-S11-syllabus.html

I first heard of this tragedy through an entry from Roger Ebert’s Twitter, which I subscribe to: http://twitter.com/ebertchicago/status/23832983249092608. Ebert tweets “How long will Palin leave these comments on her facebook?” and links to her Facebook status update: “My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today's tragic shooting in Arizona. On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice.” Comments flew back and forth between posters, guessing who the shooter was, and what his/her political affiliations were (from the left or the right?). That is all I initially knew of it through these two social media outlets. I quickly consulted Google News for more information.  Who was Gabrielle Giffords? What had happened in Tucson? Was Palin in any way linked to/somehow responsible for this incident? 

I think the more vitriolic comments have since been taken down, but I surmise that they were there initially, from one commenter Lori’s recent post: “Many didn't blame her for the Tucson shooting, but asked her to join the call for civility in the country and take responsibility for whatever part she has personally played in it. She chose, instead, to remove anything that even looks like less than fan adoration instead.”

Palin’s connection to this incident has been linked to the now-infamous “crosshairs map,” targeting on-the-fence Democrats, which she posted on Facebook first, then tweeted about later. http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110113/FREE/110119917. This article, “Sarah Palin learns Web has no Undo Feature” states: “Sometimes you make a mistake in the digital realm and you need to fix it. But once something is out on the Web and in social networks, you cannot erase it. Instead, you must apologize and move on.”

The crosshairs map has been cached and could remain in Google’s servers for eternity. The participant in Nardi’s (2004) study who blogged a famous quote to her followers “In a 100 years it will all be over,” may not have had such an incident in mind. Anything placed on the Internet then, (unfortunately?) becomes fair game. 

To elaborate more on Nardi’s study, it does bring up something that has already been discussed many times over in the zine community. Zines to me are basically the forerunner to the blog. Anyone with access to paper, ink, and a copy machine could self-publish and distribute what could be described as “magazines.” The topics ranged anywhere from the political to the personal (referred to sometimes as “perzines”). With perzines in particular, what should you publish… and what should instead be left in your diary? I recall an interview a popular perzine author who said almost the exact same thing in response to a question on how she decided what to publish about her personal life.

As a side note, I notice once in awhile that people who are lively, entertaining, energetic, witty in person... don't always translate this into their blogs. It can be a little disappointing. I wonder if it stems from not wanting to reveal too much about themselves in an online environment, or if the online environment just makes them uncomfortable. Conversely, sometimes a quiet person can suddenly becomes “alive” in online forums.

Something addressed in both Beer (2007) and Herring’s (2004) articles is the concept of Web 2.0’s more open, democratic, and participatory nature.  As in Herring’s study, Roger Ebert’s Twitter (though not exactly a blog) became my personal news filter, initially informing me of the incident. And as his followers know quite well (raise your hand!), his frequent daily updates, supplemented with his regular blog, more than make up for the 140-character tweet limit. So if he’s unable to make a point in one tweet within the 140-character limit, in the next few minutes he will roll out a series of tweets to clarify the last, or link to a detailed blog entry.

However open and participatory we may like the Web to be, there is a dark side, according to Tenopir (2007), who says, “When anyone can add unfiltered, unvetted, and unattributed information to a growing array of social networking sites—sites some people rely on for their news or research—we have a dangerous dumbing-down of culture.” I can only speak for myself, that I do know the difference between a credible source, and a deceptive one, but I can see where her concerns might arise from.

I didn’t talk about boyd (2007) or Dibbell (1998) yet in this entry, but I do have a brief comment for both. The concept of “copy-and-paste literacy” cited by boyd was novel and interesting for me. And reading Dibbell’s article brought me back to the novel Snow Crash. Was that the same for anyone else?

To me, social computing shifts away from pure computing, and places more of an emphasis on the user, especially communities of users. It's a useful framework to analyze and study communities that have grown from Internet applications.

My First Post

Hi everyone! I'm working to follow everyone's blog at the moment. In case I missed yours, please post a comment and let me know. So far on my list there's several blogs named "Social Computing" and one all in Chinese... it's a good thing I can recognize some Chinese characters. ;)

I look forward to reading your blogs!