Danica Loucks
Sociology 022 – In the Facebook Age – Spring 2010 – Dhiraj Murthy

Oh boy–finally getting around to this post. It’s been another 8-to-8 kind of a day.

So, Chatroulette. It intrigues me. I had never heard of it until last week when Peter brought it up. At first I was put off by the words at the beginning: “Click ‘Play’ to start the game!” I guess I viewed the idea of clicking through random people as an unattractive use of time. And I still am not planning on spending lengthy chunks of time playing Chatroulette, but I would have to say I feel like I have a better understanding and more information to examine after having participated in Chatroulette myself.

First, I now understand how it really can be somewhat of a game, and somewhat of an addiction. You are going through all these random people, but there is a chance that you will find what you are looking for–whether that is an interesting conversation or porn (some being more likely than others as we know). I think part of the appeal for people who use chatrouletette is the game of chance–so it’s not just that they are going to a Social Network Site and finding people they already know, or even meeting knew people on line that they know have similar interests. Chatroulette becomes an experience of paradoxes–it is a public space, as in you don’t have to sign in and it’s kind of like starting to talk to a random person on the street, but at the same time, because it allows for more anonymity than a public space like the street or a mall or what have you, it is somewhat like a private space because you can do whatever you want and chances are the “random stranger” you are connected with will be just that. Well, it could be your professor, too, but with over 20,000 users on at one time, what are the chances?

On a personal level, I felt uncomfortable being on webcam with a completely random person–this may partly be because I usually don’t like using a webcam with people I know, but also because I still carry the childhood lesson of “don’t talk to strangers”…especially those strangers who are what the Chatroulette video would put in the category of “perverts.” But at the same time, I find myself not able to dub Chatroulette as an inherently bad thing–for one, I actually did have a conversation with somebody, and while it wasn’t exactly profound or anything, at least the guy was just someone at work who didn’t mind chatting a bit, but what was more influential for me was Professor Murthy’s experience with the Mario and Luigi and Peter’s conversation with the Chinese guy. It was pretty cool to be able to ask these Italian guys in Spain what they thought about Chatroulette–to try to understand what approach and views they have to Chatroulette. And perhaps what really sold me was Peter and his mini Chinese lesson–the chance of meeting someone with an interest you have, or a language you want to learn, or even just hearing somebody tell about his/her culture and lifestyle. I mean, I guess there are SNSs where you could probably do that, like iTalki or something, but this unmediated, entirely random connection has the possibility to bring you into contact with somebody who may teach you something you never would have learned about otherwise. And so, for now, my opinion about Chatroulette is that it is not inherently bad, nor inherently good. Also, it has an enormous amount of potential–potential for really neat connections, and potential for some new and challenging legal ramifications.

What I find quite interesting, if Chatroulette is neither inherently bad or good, that gives it a similar characteristic to the internet, according to “The Sociology of the Internet.” Yet one of the things that stood out most to me about Chatroulette was that it didn’t follow the pattern of reflection society as many other aspects of the internet seem to do. Instead of forming SNSs or groups within an SNS of a preexisting identity from actual society, (Note: actual as in physical being, I have to say I’m sold on the idea of the internet occurrences being “real.”) there you can be paired up with somebody from a completely different cultural/social/economical background. And sure, they can “next” you in a matter of seconds. (I am pretty sure the quickest way to get nexted is to put a Teddy Bear in as an avatar for yourself. I did this with a Webcam program I have and got back on Chatroulette to study more of the demographics. This was in part to deal with my discomfort of being on the webcam, but it ended up being rather humorous to see people’s confusion when a teddy bear showed up in their screens. But then, another guy said, “WTF IS THIS? you = fail.”) If someone really has an issues with, say, race, then they’ll probably just next whoever belongs to the race they are looking down upon, but for people not on the extreme ends of various group separations, there is this opportunity of interacting across social divides. (There is, of course, still the digital divide, so we won’t be seeing “fourth world” inhabitants on Chatroulette any time soon.)

After getting a nearly 50% disturbing image rate during class, I wondered if that was something that fluctuated with time of day. My suspicions were confirmed when flipping through it briefly this evening and having a much less disturbing experience, although I still couldn’t quite work of the courage to get rid of my teddy bear avatar and strike of a video conversation with a stranger. I think part of it is that nearly all the hits are males who look older than I am, and while I would be interested in a brain-stimulating conversation, I can’t help but be predisposed to holding up my guard. Yet there is still the chance of meeting that someone who would teach me more Chinese…

Until I find that someone, I will just keep pressing ‘Next.’**

**Just to keep things clear, I am most certainly not spending the evening looking for a random person on Chatroulette. While I am most intrigued by this online phenomenon, I will be spending the evening studying Chinese, which in the long run is much more time effective.