Carl Spielvogel
Sociology 022 – In the Facebook Age – Spring 2010 – Dhiraj Murthy

I think Andrew Keen’s writing is one sided and does not include sufficient evidence to support his extreme thesis.  He writes by picking out evidence after coming up with his thesis, instead of looking at evidence as a whole and then coming up with a conclusion.

For one, it is not the introduction of blogs, YouTube type sites, SNSs and the likes that have caused the newspapers to loose great amounts of money.  Sure, this is a part of the reason, but the loss in revenue really comes from the introduction of the Internet and the fact that people just want to get their news online using the same online paper companies instead of paying for a paper.  These news companies who distribute (or once did before loosing lots of money) papers also have websites that are free for people to access.  Thus, even with advertising on their pages, they do not make as much money anymore because people are just using computers to go onto the websites of the paper companies to gather information.  Not to mention this information comes up in real time on the sites, which makes it even more attractive than buying a plain newspaper that only comes once a day (I have updates even sent from the New York Times to my phone for free).  The recent downward decline in revenue is not because of the great masses of blogs, etc. but because people suddenly switched to using computers to go to the newspaper sites and view articles.  This is why newspapers like the New York Times are now going to be charging for access on their website in the coming year.  Keen writes of a morbid state in the future based off of a decline that has recently been shown, but really this will level off.

Sure, more people are running the show.  But to say that people are now turning to blog sites and Wikipedia for cited resources is an exaggeration.  Sure, there is a trend of people posting and creating new blogs and putting their opinions out there.  But academia is not changing.  Any academic knows that something posted on a blog or Wikipedia is not necessarily true.  Maybe a middle schooler is accidentally citing personal blogs as sources for a project, but there is an understanding among those more experienced and knowledgeable that not all sources online are reputable.  And, on another note, Wikipedia does have restrictions that help make sure information that isn’t correct doesn’t get posted (the main authors of the page can edit posts, people can report/change inaccuracies, and many pages are becoming full of citations).  Furthermore, the success of Wikipedia exemplifies the fact that peer review on the site allows for correct information.  Wikipedia can in fact work as a site to gather basic information on a topic before going into more depth.  You go on the site with an understanding that not everything is necessarily true, and the sources sited on the page often lead you to information and sources that are more reliable.

Keen writes about pedophiles like they are rampant online.  This is an excessive exaggeration.  Pedophiles are just as abundant online as in the physical world.  And just like the physical world, you just must know methods to stay away from such pedophiles.  Even with the amount of openness on the web, their only rare cases of pedophile interaction (in context of the entire Internet world), or at least pedophile interaction going bad (which is the same as the physical world; I’m sure many of us have talked to a pedophile and not realized it.  My elementary school soccer coach of three years was revealed when I was in high school to be a major pedophile on Fox news!) .

Keen also says that popular peer sites only cover stories that are unimportant and skip over important news like current conflicts in the world, etc.  But, this is evident in news companies as well.  News TV shows, CNN, NBC, and the likes are just the same as shows like Access Hollywood or Entertainment tonight.  They’re trying to make money.  Popular news media filters out information and only puts up what they think will be attractive to viewers or readers.  Not all of the important problems and news of the world are appearing on news shows or in the paper.  There is not enough time or room (on the pages) to show it.  Thus, news companies sift through information and only show what they think is relevant or will be popular.  In this way are they also leaving out important aspects of world news in their reporting.

Burgess and Green demonstrate how new sites like Youtube and blogs actually have positive qualities.  They state that such sites online create a “participatory culture.”  Instead of the top down culture of media picking information and then distributing it to the public, the public now has a say in what is being published to the world.  People are allowed to put out many opinions and make a more democratic approach to information production and publication.  The authors state on page 13 that the media is now even using sites and videos produced by individuals in their reporting.  This shows that the media obviously finds value in information produced by individuals.  For example, a lot of videos of the recent election crisis in Iran used by mass media came from individual postings on YouTube.

Overall, I think Keen should be less harsh on new blog sites and posting sites, as they do positively contribute in ways to society.  They democratize media (as Burgess and Green point out) by creating more options for information and news. There are now more news outlets than just the mainstream corporations that have previously monopolized news production.  Even though some sites contain information that is misleading or untrue, there are many that do aid in research and general information.  Furthermore, academia still values academic research and news reporting as correct information over information posted by amateurs… so there is really no reason to worry.

Empirical research on Facebook use has shown that users are allowing different forms of access to their profiles for different groups of friends, while others lack profile restriction at all; the degree of profile visibility is important because the potential for viewers to see private information posted on a profile has implications ranging from user safety to aspiration attainment.

Net “enthusiasts” like Al Gore will say that the Internet and “cyberspace” (Dalhberg 72) are “enhancing the public sphere.”  I 100% agree with this.  One can take the word enhancing to be that of making the public sphere a better one.  However, when I say I agree, really I think about a synonym of enhance: amplification.  The Internet is most definitely amplifying politics.  It allows for public discussion across the globe (as Papacharissi states, it breaks down “geographical boundaries (Papacharissi 381), through increased information sharing and the ability to express oneself online through blogs, forums, and the likes. This is all good, but I really just think along the same lines as what Jones (1997) and Papacharissi state: the internet allows us to “shout louder,”(385) but on the private or semi private forums people are writing on, the entire public sphere is not participating (382).

First of all, Papacharissi states, along with many others that have pointed this out, those unable to be on the Internet for whatever reason are at the disadvantage.  They will never be able to access the public sphere because they can’t even access the public space the public sphere is on (382).   But even with access, the existence of such public spheres doesn’t seem to be a huge influence… or at least, yet.

Papacharissi points out that researchers have found that the “virtual sphere is politically divided in a manner that echoes traditional politics, thus simply serving as a space for additional expression, rather than radically reforming political thought and structure”(383).  She further mentions that even with the increase of online users, the same small groups of people are using it for actual political “discourse” (383).  Dalhberg states that people online are really going online to “maximize their individual pleasure” (Dahlberg 78) which causes “privatization” of online “interaction”(77); this strikes me as especially important.

First of all, these groups are not only for political discourse.  There are many fan sites and blogs for hobbies, supremacists/racists (as mentioned by Papacharissi mentions), media, political groups, environmental/human aid groups etc.  When I go online to look at a particular site, I do so for my own personal gain.  I think this is the case for the majority of us.  If I have a question on a hobby enthusiast site about where and how to go about replacing a broken tail flap on my remote control airplane, I ask and hope somebody answers that is knowledgeable and nice enough to help me out.  But seriously, I don’t go to that site unless I need help; I’m not going online to be someone’s model airplane lifesaver.  Call me selfish, because online my remote controlled airplane experience is just an example of being so.  But so are most of the site’s users; I think the number of active members in conversation to help other people is pretty minimal. This isn’t a political site example, but it relates to politics because its online participant to viewer ratio is just the same.  Go online to the New York Times site, one of the most influential papers out there… the number of comments on articles are low while the number of readers (I’m speculating based on it being the NYT) are way higher.  And, when you go to a site that isn’t as popular… like a blog or site specified over a certain issue for example… first of all, not many people are going to be going to the site and additionally, there will be a similar small ratio of those participating in discussion.

I think the real advantages of cyberspace are ones for businesses and specified groups.  Dahlberg mentions this on page 73 when talking about how it helps organizations become more well known and become connected with people.   The true advantage of cyberspace is its information sharing and dispersal, which is really coming back to the same point made by Dahlberg about individuals using the Internet and public spheres for personal pleasure or to gain information.  Organizations are doing so similarly.  They recognize the networking skills of the Internet, and this most certainly aids them in their pursuits.

Overall, I really don’t think politics are being reformatted by the amplification of public spheres.  Cyberspace discussion is too split up into these separate public spheres.  It is in this way that even among Internet users only fractions go to each ‘sphere’ (aka site, blog, etc).  I can’t be a part of every Facebook group that is ever made, and I will never know what every one of these groups is discussing.  They are all separate and not in a large forum of the Internet population (there is no such thing).  In this way does the Internet act like the non-virtual world; we still diverge over the same certain issues and still become parts of only certain groups and social spheres.  We are open to a more accessible space for public interaction (as mentioned by Papacharissi 382), but we still are parts of only few groups.  Furthermore, in these few groups we are not completely active members either.  Most of us are selfish online users.

Although I do not believe that cyberspace is currently creating vast political change, I do think it offers organizations the ability to grow.  Utilizing individual public spheres is helpful and is making these organizations grow, but I think that organizations will benefit the most by striving to be parts of the entire public space, instead of these subsections.  Papacharissi asks if the Internet is creating “globalization and tribalization”(384); I think that currently it is creating the latter.  Within different spheres, individuals gain from interconnectivity and conversation among users as well as the information posted on site admins.  Organizations gain from being such admins and getting their names out or gaining donors, members, etc.  I know this is probably impossible to fully accomplish…but the more a user, group, etc. is accessing the global Internet society, the more they will gain.  With a world becoming more Internet connected, such groups will benefit in the non-virtual world by becoming global virtually; if these groups or people are politically active, then perhaps their proper Internet utilization will reflect political change (as they will perhaps become dominant over those not utilizing the Internet well).

Why College, Alcohol, and Facebook Don’t Mix
by Carl Spielvogel

Principal Steve Okoniewkis of Luxemburg Casco High School in Wisconsin recently warned his students that “nothing in social networking is truly private”(Associate Press, 2010). Okoniewski recently disciplined eight underage students for posted Facebook photos of them consuming alcohol, and according to a local newspaper, there is possibility for these students to face criminal penalties (Ibid.). Past research on social networking sites (SNSs) like Facebook has shown that using SNSs can increase social capital in terms of enhanced networking and greater connection to an SNS enhanced broadening of one’s friend base (Ellison et al., 2007). However, with increased surveillance and decreased privacy, the risks and consequences of actively using a Facebook account outweigh the capital gained with use for many students, especially those choosing to consume alcohol illegally. Access to even private Facebook profiles has been demonstrated to be easily accessed by officials (school administrators, police, etc.) due to the public nature of Facebook script, Facebook and Facebook application profile ‘tracking,’ as well as Facebook ‘friends’’ willingness to divulge others’ profile information to authority. Easy profile accessibility is important because with an ever-increasing amount of underage college students that actively drink becoming active members on Facebook, more are subject to or possible victims of security breaches in privacy that can lead to detrimental hindrances to their life progress and future aspirations.

“My body is not a temple… it’s a distillery with legs,”(Facebookcraze, 2010) recommends one site centered around funny profile statuses to put up on Facebook. This is possibly one of the many similar statuses that college student Facebook users are putting up every weekend. Any college age Facebook user can relate to seeing such posts coming up on one’s ‘minifeed’ feature of the website, as many college students continue to participate in underage drinking on campuses nationwide. A three year national survey ending in 2005 established that 57.8 percent of full time underage college students drink at least once a month (SAMHSA, 2006), and a 2005 study by Jones and Soltren concluded that over 80 percent of college Freshman are members of Facebook before coming to school (Jones and Soltren, 2005, pp. 4). Of these users, 83 percent keep their profiles updated every three months, and the most active users have been found to divulge the most information over the Internet (Ibid., pp.15-16). It is the less mature underage undergraduates that demonstrate the willingness to share the most on their profiles (Ibid., pp. 18). Of college freshman, a poll has found that 70 percent are drinking and 49.4 percent use up more time drinking than studying (Marklein, 2009). This proves that underage consumption is a large part of underclassmen college culture, and evidence of underage drinking appears nationwide as students regularly post information or pictures of themselves doing so, in concurrence with the study of younger students being the most active Facebook users. Such uncensored posting runs the risk of punitive action, as Facebook information is public enough to get caught.

Four Northern Kentucky University students experienced disciplinary action by the university’s college after a proctor saw and reported pictures on one of their Facebook profiles that showed a contraband keg and underage party in their dorm room (Chalfant, 2005). Such an example demonstrates the ability for already Facebook ‘friends’ to divulge available (to the friends) Facebook photos to authority figures like school administrators, fellow employers, or police. These students received minor punitive measures, however there are worse effects of such postings possible. Ten percent of the top 500 colleges admitted to viewing applicants’ Facebook profiles in determining their admission (Hechinger, 2008). Employers are increasingly using Facebook to ascertain information about job candidates as well, including history of illegal alcohol and drug use (majeffrey, 2007). Furthermore, law enforcement agencies are actively using Facebook for evidence in criminal cases by subpoenas (Facebook.com, 2010). But, that’s not to say that they and other information gatherers cannot grant access to information via other routes.

What is very alarming is the way information on Facebook is easily reachable. The same study by Jones and Soltren mentioned above was able to access and download 72.28 percent of the profiles they attempted to (Jones and Soltren, pp. 13). They were able to accomplish this task because Facebook runs on a no secure socket layer where the username and password are shown in the URL of the sign-in operation of the site (Ibid., 10). Thus, someone with a tech savvy intuition can figure out such information (Ibid., 10). Similarly, third party Facebook applications not created by Facebook (many of which are easy to create by the potential stalker, etc.) have access to profiles utilizing them, and Facebook uses user information for third party advertising purposes (Facebook.com). An anonymous Facebook employee created further scare about the site’s privacy when she claimed that Facebook keeps ‘track’ of everything a user does on the site, stores every message written, and until recently, every Facebook employee could access any profile with a single password (Paul, 2010). These examples indicate that posting underage drinking photos online could be revealed in the present or future, which has implications on prospect politicians and the likes.

Meanwhile, students continue to use Facebook, unconcerned by possible future consequences, and 89 percent have never read the Privacy Policy (Jones and Soltren, pp. 21). Half of college students don’t even know third party applications or advertisers have access to their profiles (Ibid., 21). This paper has shown significant evidence of the minimal privacy Facebook truly offers. Principal Okoniewkis is right; students must not post pictures of drinking on Facebook, or they will face the consequences.

Bibliography
Anonymous. (2010). Funny Addiction Facebook Status Updates. Available: http://facebookcraze.com/category/status-updates/. Last accessed 21 Apr. 2010.

Anonymous. (2010). Facebook Safety Center. Available: http://www.facebook.com/help/?safety. Last accessed 21 Apr. 2010.

Associate Press. (2010). Eight students disciplined for Facebook drinking photos. Available: http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/84865632.html. Last accessed 21 Apr. 2010.

Chalfant, Drew. (2005). Facebook postings, photos incriminated dorm party-goers. Available: http://www.thenortherner.com/2.9399/facebook-postings-photos-incriminate-dorm-party-goers-1.1281445. Last accessed 21 Apr. 2010.

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., and Lampe, C. 2007. “The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1143-1148, 1161-1165.

Hechinger, John. (2008). College Applicants, Beware: Your Facebok Page Is Showing. Available: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122170459104151023.html . Last accessed 21 Apr. 2010.

Marklein, Mary Beth. (2009). College freshmen study booze more than books. Available: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-03-11-college-drinking_N.htm. Last accessed 21 Apr. 2010.

majeffrey. (2010). How employers look at Myspace and Facebook pages. Available: http://hubpages.com/hub/How_employers_look_at_Myspace_and_Facebook_pages. Last accessed 21 Apr. 2010.

Paul, Ian. (2010). Facebook Tracks Your Every Move, Employee Claims. Available: http://www.pcworld.com/printable/article/id,186715/printable.html. Last accessed 21 Apr. 2010.

SAMHSA. (2006). College Underage Binge Drinking: Underage Alcohol Use among Full-Time College Students. Available: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k6/college/collegeUnderage.cfm. Last accessed 21 Apr. 2010.

My use of Twitter over the past days has been an enjoyable experience. I’ve had a twitter since my senior year in high school, but it was made by a friend for me and I never really used it. I posted a couple posts at the beginning of its use to see what it was like, but never found a use for it because none of my friends actively participated on Twitter. They had accounts, but didn’t use them regularly enough for it to be rewarding. When I got back on to my Twitter after basically a year of not using it, I saw posts from my friends from this spring that said things like, “first post in over a year!” or, “back on Twitter again!” Then I saw them make a few posts, and they have not done so since. It seems as if my friends for some reason this spring were impelled to go back onto Twitter, but then realized that it was really like talking into dead space, since nobody else in my friend group or from my school was online using it during the same time period.

That being said, with a group of people actively using Twitter this past week, I began to find value in it as more people became relaxed with their usage over time. Phil cracked a joke at me working out my abs, people were asking questions on the go to all of their friends (such as, “wanna get lunch? Or what time is the robocup tournament?”), talking about academic sources and things they heard on the internet or radio, and having debates over sports games. I discovered via active participation or observation that posting on the go via a mobile device to a public forum of your friends like Twitter can be rewarding. For example, asking where and when robocup is on your Twitter with your Itouch automatically sends your question to all of your friends (that use Twitter), and increases the likelihood that someone who knows the answer will instantaneously respond. If you want to type an email on a mobile device to all of your friends, it is much more difficult and takes longer to do. Posting on Facebook isn’t as productive and easy to do, especially considering your post won’t necessarily come up on your friends’ minifeeds or will appear on their minifeeds in delay. When you need instantaneous response and real time connection with your friends, Twitter is the way to go.

A look at Twitter privacy: Even though your posts are public by default, you can set your Twitter profile to be private for only your friends to see. Also, I don’t really find Twitter to be dangerous to the user’s privacy compared to sites like Facebook. This is because you don’t post pictures, and I would never post anything inappropriate Twitter, or any SNS in that case. Even if an employer (ect.) saw my Twitter, they wouldn’t find anything bad about me. If I ever had a problem with someone or something, I would never complain via public forum anyway (like the teacher on Facebook, etc.). I tend to talk in person about more important/personal matters. (But, I still think Twitter is useful in many other contexts). My friends tend to know what I am talking about, so there is no need usually for me to specify exactly the address of where I am going in a tweet, so if a stalker got on my profile and saw the words “Studying in the basement,” I don’t really think he/she would know where to go to find me. Also, if someone really wanted to learn a lot about me, I already have a Facebook. Going on Facebook and somehow hacking onto my profile (which apparently isn’t hard) would really be the place to start (not to mention the default Facebook info publicly displayed is already pretty detailed) . The one thing I will note is that my full name is my username; I’m thinking that it would probably be a good idea for me to change that if it’s possible! (But my Facebook name is too…)

Just adding this in after already writing this post… my friend at Bowdoin just friended me on Twitter, and told me that a main reason he uses Twitter is for updates from CNN. Yet another type of benefit from Twitter use….

Every time I go to get my money from an ATM machine, I think of airport security. This sounds weird, but, after reading a book called, “The Ethical Brain,” (as described earlier in my blogs) by Michael Gazzaniga I began to wonder if my privacy would begin to decinerate with the coming of modern computer technologies. Gazzaniga said that ATM machines were now in the process of being developed with facial recognition software that would be able to tell your own moods while you are there to get out cash. Your mood would determine the advertisements that would appear on the machine as you waited for your cash. Or, perhaps the moods and video recorded by the machine would be stored without your knowledge and then used against you in court since you were in the area of a murder a block down the street, and you looked angry. Also mentioned in the book were possibilities of increased airport security where images of bombs and terrorist activity would appear and your reactions would be analyzed in order to determine if you were safe to be let on a plane. With increased technological options, the ability for surveillance by third parties and government is becoming boundless. This scares me, as perhaps the government will take on the idea that the Panopticon represents; that being that the more surveillance, the safer and better communities governed by the use of it will be.

We already see third parties accessing our information via SNSs like Facebook, and the police, school administrators, employers, and the likes have utilized their user’s lack of understanding of their privacy on the web as well as loopholes found in the system. We see this in Jones and Soltren’s piece, as they are able to quasi hack and download large quantities of college students for their study undetected. Every once in a while I see a friend’s profile that has been hacked by an advertiser to write on peoples’ walls and say something like, “hey, check out this site… it’s really sweet dude” and what do you know… upon clicking, something disgusting appears on my screen. The freshman girl from high school I know through family certainly didn’t send me that! I also see ads specified to my interests pop up on my side bar while on Facebook. When we post things on Facebook and download an app to our profiles, those applications are privy to your information. This is something many of Facebook users don’t realize (as described in the Jones and Soltren piece). Although Facebook might not be using your stored information to their advantage or making it public (unless you want them to), who is to say these applications and companies using your information might not? Perhaps they even break a privacy law, in which case it would take years to punish them in court over since Internet laws are often ambiguous; by the time the court battle was won, all of your information would be already made public!

Looking at public figures and celebrities is an example of the possible consequences we face in the upcoming age of surveillance and computer technologies. Michael Phelps wanted to be part of the younger culture with his friends and other young people, and he ended up having a photo of him smoking Pot posted on someone’s Facebook page. He suffered great consequences of this, such as being suspended from competition by USA swimming.

This brings me to my final point about privacy. We can untag ourselves on Facebook, but we can’t make people not post them on their profiles. This is quite unfortunate, in my opinion, because it seems as if the uploading of Facebook photos by friends and people constantly taking pictures to do so socially is actually a form of self-surveillance. Every time a person posts a picture of you online, it is made public within your friend group and there is always the possibility for it to be made completely public. Perhaps, for example, the friend who posted it allowed everybody to see his or her photos. Or, police, school administrators, etc. somehow procured access onto a person’s Facebook displaying illegal images and in a plea bargain made the person allow them to view photos of other friends via the person’s profile (I’ve heard of this happening at private-schools). I’m not sure if Michael Phelps had a Facebook, but some random person took a picture of him and posted it on their Facebook. They performed “surveillance” on him and it was made public. Facebook and online surveillance perhaps is even more overpowering than the Panopticon jail; we are all actively putting ourselves under the watchful eye of eachother, as well as possibly law enforcement and government organizations. This is relevant to recent and past methods of surveillance, as it demonstrates that we (specifically those using online SNSs, blogs, etc.) are evolving into a culture of surveillance not only by known governmental organizations and their known and partially understood secret practices, but also by ourselves with the advent of advanced communication and web-based networking.

Is this a good thing? I’m certainly a bit scared. Perhaps Big Brother is becoming a reality. I don’t want to constantly be in fear of doing something wrong or not being socially acceptable. Facebook and the Internet hasn’t facilitated such a world yet, but it seems that the possibility for that to happen (via internet/SNSs) by some force (perhaps ourselves) is growing every day. Spooooky!!!

Check out Gazzaniga’s book!

http://books.google.com/books?id=R0ICFQ16h0YC&dq=gazzaniga+the+ethical+brain&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=nxvNS8fGK4P-8Aa_8NWPAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

This video is very similar to the “Sophie” videos about anorexia, but it has to do with us Bowdoin students!  It similarly uses a song (that is now quasi famous among students… especially Bowdoin kids) and it inspires/educates people about about global warming’s effect on Polar Bears.

We should totally have this as our viral video!!

The video can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzkW4xKaiL8

The lyrics are:

Well I’m a polar bear and my name is Bjorn
and I’ve been a polar bear since the day I was born.
Welcome to my kingdom and the world that I roam
the circumpolar arctic, the place that I call home.

They call me Nanook and Ursus Maritimus
two hundred thousand years of evolution helped design us.
With small ears, a big coat and predators’ jaws
and a layer of fat just to keep us warm.

Is it only me or do you, do you get the feeling?
While we’re watching the sun going down
someone’s turning up the central heating.

Well I’m just a polar bear so what do I know
about Milankovitch Cycles and CO2
just twelve-hundred pounds of hi tech fur
with twelve inch paws and two inch claws.

From Hudson Bay to Greenland, Russia to Alaska,
Svalbard out to Baffin and round and back again.
Just waiting on the coastline for the waves to freeze
with seals to hunt and cubs to feed.

Is it only me or do you, do you get the feeling?
While we swim beneath the Northern Lights
the ice pack is retreating.

If only each word that was said was another fall of snow.
If only each well intended thought was another.

Well I’m a polar bear and my name is Bjorn
And I’ve been a polar bear since the day I was born
Welcome to my kingdom and the world that I roam
the circumpolar arctic, the place that I call home.

The readings from this week, either exemplify or acknowledge the power internet establishments like YouTube or social networking sites (SNSs) (Facebook, Myspace, Bebo, etc) give to their users in performing self-expression and keeping enhanced intimacy in social relations.  But with new opportunities to become more intimate with ones’ friends and express oneself on a public or semi public forum/site, comes a clash between privacy and intimacy when users are able to “construct” (394) their profiles and information to be viewed to different degrees by different groups of ‘friends.’  (as mentioned by Livingstone) (Note, that the words, “self-expression,” “intimacy,” and “privacy” all come up in either David Smith or Sona Livingstone’s articles/studies.)

We see the example of the power of Internet public self-expression especially in Smith’s piece about the YouTube video, “My Story (Anorexia).  This video, which now has 417,760 views (I watched it today and checked) has inspired many people struggling with anorexia to begin a road to recovery, or at least touch them to begin to become more open about their problems.  The video (and other video’s on YouTube that have the song as their soundtrack) has empowered the soundtrack to the video, “Sophie” to become a hit amongst people suffering (from anorexia), family members of those suffering, and therapists.  The song, which was just a random song attached to the end of an unpopular alternative Irish artist’s (Eleanor McEvoy) album was able to become famous through its use as a soundtrack by individuals performing self-expression through videos online.

It’s evident that these individuals were either looking for support, a sort of mental release, or the ability to inspire others, in making the “Sophie “ videos.  Thus the use of a public site like YouTube was fitting for them.  It allowed the videos’ creators to gain as much power in self-expression and their objectives as they could because all YouTube users could potentially come across the videos.  However, with the use of social networking sites, as Livingstone has brought up, users (early teens in the case of her study) are now able to organize their friends into groups.  Each one of these groups is able to view a person’s SNS profile at a different privacy setting established by the profile’s owner.  Thus today, with the assistance of SNS technologies, we are able to ‘sort’ or essentially ‘file’ our friends under different categories to an even greater degree (than in non-online/virtual life).  SNS users are able to control their social relationships online with a few clicks of a mouse.  With SNSs growing into greater aspects of social life everyday, this power to control relationships comes at a great consequence.  It is up to the profile’s user to determine if such power will result in positive or negative consequence.  This is where Livingstone’s idea of intimacy vs. privacy appears in conversation.

Livingstone’s piece goes into depth on other issues for sure, but its mainly this struggle between intimacy and privacy that I find most pertinent to society in that it brings up possibly alarming potentials for the hindrance of younger generations coming into power.  Her article mainly talks about younger teens, but I’m going to bring all teens, and even late college to recent college graduates into the equation.  There is the fact (brought up by Livingston and most definitely understood by my practice of SNS usage) that we (teens, college kids and early grads) want to be intimate with our friends and we wish to continue this online with SNS sites.  To be intimate online on SNS sites we post photos online, bring cameras to social settings, and write with free will to our friends.  Without adjustment on one’s SNS site, all such posts are entirely public.  Of course we have been scared by our parents (and are still at times) and the media about the dangers of ‘limited’ privacy on SNS sites, so many of us put up privacy settings on our SNS sites.  We also don’t want all of our friends seeing every part of our lives.  I most definitely do not let co-workers (from summer experiences) that I am friends with online (Facebook) have access to all of my posts, information, and photos.  SNS users can go even further than me and restrict certain friends’ their own age access too certain info/posts on their SNS posts.  But, with such usage of the SNS facilitated ‘filing-system’ of friends, the SNS user collapses its friends into separate, smaller friend rings.  At some point, the rings get so small to point out the question, what is the point of using an SNS when I could perform such small interactions via another form of communication?  The power of self-expression and communication with friends decreases every time an SNS user restricts its profile.

The crux of the argument these two articles bring up is the question of where is the perfect balance between privacy restriction and openness on the Internet?  I continue to think about this question everyday.  Especially at college, where I see pictures of promiscuous or illegal acts that should most definitely be kept private posted on Facebook by classmates everyday, do I question if posting such photos to become connected with friends and have fun (with them) online is worth the possibility of negative consequences of such postings down the road.  I often question if such photos should be posted online in even a private setting.  All I know is that I keep my privacy settings fairly high, and even so, I have no questionable photos of me on my Facebook.  If an employer or teacher ever hacked into my Facebook, all he would see was pictures of me participating in community service, hanging out with friends or family on the beach, or doing recreational activities.

I see the desire for privacy coming into being in my classmates and friends’ through their profiles everyday.  Even my closest friend from high school now has me unable to view all of his pictures (because his privacy settings are set so all non- Virginia Tech students can’t see them).  Perhaps the balance of privacy vs. expression is leaning more towards the privacy side among maturing college students.  This is important because it portrays a positive future for the younger generations using SNSs.  A trend towards privacy and constraint among younger SNS users with age means that negative consequences of SNS usage (inabilities to get jobs, etc. after employers have accessed their SNSs) are concurrently decreasing.  Livingstone has pointed out SNS usage shifts with age; if younger SNS users develop into a stage of self-control online eventually in college, perhaps they will never be affected by online SNS posting mistakes of the past.

South Park just recently came out with an episode revolving around having a Facebook page and going on chatroulette.  It’s pretty funny and amazingly covers main points we have been discussing regarding SNS usage and chatroulette (although it mostly just makes fun of chatroulette for having perverts).  The episode is called “You have 0 friends” and you can find it under season 14 on www.southparkstudios.com

I recommend watching it… It’s only twenty minutes long.  It does have some swearwords, but that is the nature of South Park…

The question over whether the “virtual” experiences that we encounter everyday on the Internet are real or not seems to be a hot topic when debating the social and economic effects of the incoming information age.  My response to this question, is that yes, these virtual experiences are real, because they are created by real people and their experiences.  In reading Posner’s piece, I especially became attracted to Levy’s argument that now, “instead of the virtual becoming actual, the actual is becoming the virtual” (Posner, 201) as an idea to defend my stance.  With ever-growing communication and computer technologies, we continuously are uploading what we have experienced in history and in daily life to the Internet.  We’re constantly updating a new technology, like a newborn child, with information and social constructs it has not yet ‘learned’ of.    Individuals upload basic information everyday to their blogs, Facebook accounts etc.  With this also comes the uploading of greater social constructs that the Internet has yet to see.  Online communities, new social sites, new technologies devoted to certain groups of people, etc., appear.  New Iphone apps come out regularly devoted to the music lover, gamer, athlete, sports fan, etc.  These things all stem from the real.  We also see racism and sites devoted to racism, sex and sex type sites (as mentioned in Posner’s article) popping up.  This “newborn” Internet is learning more everyday about the workings of the entire world, and how we humans act in the real world, through us constantly manipulating and adding to it.

I think Levy’s idea (mentioned in Posner, 208) of the Internet being a “collective intelligence”(208) is spot on and puts a name to what I’ve said above.  Posner writes of this collective intelligence idea saying that the internet is an “undetermined entity whose recognition is never a mis(s) because it never congeals into permanence…” (Posner, 208).  He says that individuals are “linked to continuously shifting global processes of textual, graphic, and aural formations”(208), when using the Internet.  The Internet will always be changing, just as we as a world are.  But, right now, the Internet is especially young and is not up to date with the on-goings of the entire world.  The entire world’s inhabitants aren’t online, for one thing… there are language barriers (translation haven’t been fully dealt with – as mentioned in these papers), and countries are going “online” at different points in time and to different degrees.  The Internet is thus at different levels in up-to-date-ness (‘learned’ more or less about the cultures) on varying cultures.

This could be why we see separate “closed system[s]”(Mclelland, 826) in the global Internet like the one consisted of Internet sites in Japan like 2-channeru.  Such a system is being uploaded, based on real world racial divides, everyday to the ever-‘learning’ Internet. Mclelland has summarized Japanese Internet sites like 2-channeru, as having “limited interaction between Japanese and non-Japanese viewpoints” (Mclelland 826).  ‘True’ Japanese use the site regularly to post hatred to their “immediate neighbors”(826) (Koreans and Chinese) and Koreans living in Japan.   We see the Internet “learning” through the site by the addition of posts based on disturbing real world stereotypes in Japan.  (Although a side note, I found these stereotypes especially disturbing because the divides shown on the Internet in Japan do not have to do with wealth and the ability to get online, but solely based on race.  It’s no doubt unsettling that race often coincides with wealth in the Western world… but the fact that social status  in Japan mainly relies on having true Japanese blood especially upset me.)

Although this Japanese site is mainly made up of Japanese contributors, Mclelland points out that it is a contact zone to some degree because, in fact, people are posting messages on the site using Japanese translators or English, or the infrequent American is posting something in English as well.   This gets back to Levy’s point of the Internet always changing and my understanding (based on his points) that the Internet is always learning and gaining information from the real-world.  The Internet, as a “collective intelligence” (Posner 208) has yet to learn and make such sites (like 2-channeru) available to everyone in the World to see and contribute to.  The Internet is young and is continuously catching up to our actions in the real world and in a sense is ‘recording’ them and adding them to itself.  The Internet is made up of, and gains knowledge from, real people; thus the virtual world is real.  Racism of Japan revealed on the Internet is certainly real.

You might go online and play an online poker-game with chips that aren’t actually worth money.  But, the game’s online existence is a real resultant of peoples’ desire for such a game, and their real enjoyment or dissatisfaction (in which perhaps the site would eventually go away) gained from playing it.