Edward Googins
Sociology 022 – In the Facebook Age – Spring 2010 – Dhiraj Murthy

I found virtual ethnicity to be the most challenging topic that we have covered so far.  That being said, I’ll do my best to regurgitate the most important parts of the readings.  I’ll start with a brief review.

It has been clear throughout the progress of this course that the internet has the ability to connect people from many different locations and backgrounds.  This has not been proven with data, it has simply been assumed to be true.  When talking about virtual communities one of the strongest points for their value was that virtual communities allow people with similar view to find each other and communicate online.  This in turn allowed for relationships to be completely dependent on interests and similarities.  A problem with this model that we did not address until this week however was that relationships can also be formed based on disinterest and differences.  Also, what happens when relationships are based on similar interest in hate?  That is what these two articles attempted to figure out.

I had a very hard time reading Virtual Ethnicity: Tribal Identity in an Age of Global Communications.  I just didn’t seem able to pull out as much information from it as I am used to in a reading.  However, I did find a few parts of it very interesting and lead me to think a lot about virtual identity’s.  One of these passages was the definition of the “superpanopticon.”  A panopticon is essentially a structure which allows for prisoners to be viewed at any time without the observer letting the prisoner when they are being monitored or not.  A so called superpanopticon refers to the fact that the Internet contains “records of information, databases,which construct identities of individuals outside their consciousness, with their (unwitting) participation, yet inscribed in institutional and practical contexts.”  Poster then discussed MUDs and MOOs which are essentially virtual identities that people create when they are online.  An interesting point in my mind was how “the predominance of white American users often leads to the presumption that one is interacting with a white American person.”  Where it really got interesting was when Poster brought in the idea that online all ethnicity is dissolved.  He then rebuked this idea and instead cited CyberJew as evidence that the internet does not make ethnicity disappear, it allows ethnicity’s to connect with each other.  At this point I was getting confused.  Each of these ideas alone were intriguing but they didn’t really seem to connect together, and some actually contradicted each other.  The following is my attempt to resolve all of these ideas.

The reference to a superpanopticon is a reference to the fact that records of internet usage is everywhere.  Information is recorded whether those people want it recorded or not.  This information could in theory be used definitions of users ethnicity’s which relates to MOOs the more information online or the more time some one spends online the more solidified their virtual ethnicity becomes.  However this information can be misread or misinterpreted, and example of which is that many users are assumed to be white Americans.  But then if people’s information is mistaken much of the time can their really exist a virtual ethnicity?  The proof is in CyberJew.  Virtual ethnicity can essentially be used to connect people of similar backgrounds, experiences, or beliefs which can allow for diverse and stimulating interactions.  So, in conclusion, I believe that Posters final point is that virtual ethnicity can allow for interactions with people of similar ethnicity even if separated geographically.  Essentially it is our conclusion on virtual communities applied to ethnicity.

The other reading assessed a completely different side of virtual ethnicity.  Although virtual can be used for good, it can also be used for bad things, such as racist comments and derogatory discussions.  An example of this is 2-channeru, a japanese forum that is being used to put down others cultures.  Largely at risk in these conversations are the “resident koreans,” people of korean descent that live in Japan.  These people are given less liberties and privileges than “real” japanese citizens despite small if any difference between them.  This racism problem is being amplified online.  One of the major problems is that most of the primary languages on the internet are used in multiple countries.  Japanese, although well represented in size on the internet, is primarily only spoken in Japan.  Because of this, the internet in Japan is more of an intranet that is keeping discussions and connections within Japan itself.  Above I talked about how most internet users are assumed to be white americans.  Similarly, on the japanese internet, users are assumed to be japanese citizens and address each other as such.  Caught in the middle of these cross country forum are the resident koreans, citizens who are accessing media and information that is not designated for them.  To make it worse, many of the discussions are of a racist basis against resident koreans.  This is isolating the poor citizens as they are surrounded by racist comments and don’t feel able to contribute.  An example of a discussion on 2-channeru was one forum titled, “Who do you hate more, the Chinese or the Koreans.”  Many resident koreans are resorting to using the internet in different languages to escape the hate.  One resident korean posted his frustrations about his current citizenship online in english since he is not able to say such things in japanese.

Other examples of this racist culture is how when Japanese used on the internet is not native-level, posters are assumed to be Korean. Posts in japanese will also assume a race of another poster if they disagreed or agreed with what they had to say.  Even worse, one post in the paper said “Speak japanese, language of your master!!”  An interesting point to make is that all posts are completely anonymous, which is presumably not discouraging these negative behaviors since users are essentially guaranteed that their comments are never going to be able to be confronted based on their beliefs.  These articles where obviously full of information, but especially the first one was difficult to understand and they were obviously incredibly very dense.  Hopefully I was able to hit on some of the key points of the readings however.

Unrelated to this course I found my last point to be very troubling to my personal ideals.  I am for all intents and purposes an optimist.  I believe that people are mostly good and that bad behaviors are a small part of what makes a person human.  You may know that some one has done bad things, but in almost all circumstances I would believe that anyone can change.  There is always a choice.  I have had many discussions with friends and family on this topic but have never been more troubled by a piece of information than I was by our piece on 2-channeru.  Ignoring the sociological implications that we discussed, what I found most hurtful was that when guaranteed anonymity people would say such awful things.  More than anything else, this class has exposed me to the ugly underside of the internet.  Now that my eyes have been opened I find myself moving past a youtube clip and towards the comments when it is over.  Even on clips with little kids playing an instrument or singing etc., there are always hurtful comments somewhere.  2-channeru to me was an extreme example of this kind of hate on the internet.  Many of these comments would never have been made if there was a name attached to them.  It was this realization that made me come up with a theory that I found disturbing.  Is it possible that with complete anonymity people are able to shed the shell that is their life and express their true feelings?  Are posts online more truthful than a discussion in person?  Without worrying about reputations are people saying what is really on their mind?  Is the Internet offering a glimpse into our worlds true colors?  If it is, I can’t say I like what I see…

“The time has come where the distinction between online and offline is not one between ‘fantasy’ and ‘real’ lives.  Rather, one can have just as meaningful relationships through online communities as offline based communities.  Cyberspace can not only provide solid, trusting communities, but ones which are not constrained by geography.”

I will be arguing against this proposition.

Four arguments against the proposition:

1.) Cyber-communities are hard to trust, if trust can be placed in them at all.  People on the internet are not who they are in real life.  Some one who is typically shy could be DragonBlade875 on youtube who gets in a heated fight over who is at fault in the video “AC TRANSIT BUS FIGHT I AM A MOTHERFUCKER.”  The even worse scenario is that some one you meet online is some sort of predator.  The bottom line is that know matter what you think, you just don’t know who it is you’re talking to when your online unless you have met them in person.

2.)Cyber-communities lack regulation and in that way are also dangerous.  For example, Second Life is some peoples major source of income.  If one was so inclined it would be easy to break buildings, vandalize, etc.  Someone  that owns a virtual store in Second Life could lose a significant amount of their income if something happened to their store.  However, unlike the real world where someone would be subject to punishment due to the law, the lack of regulations could mean that such a crime could go unpunished.

3.)”One study at UCLA indicated that up to 93 percent of communication effectiveness is determined by nonverbal cues. Another study indicated that the impact of a performance was determined 7 percent by the words used, 38 percent by voice quality, and 55 percent by the nonverbal communication”(about.com).  The thought that when we communicate over the internet we are losing 93% of the message that would have been sent if we were talking is astonishing.  If online communities become more prevalent then we are actually accomplishing the opposite of our goal of “solid, trusting communities.”   In actuality, the community could be growing apart as this supposedly open community is actually suffering problems with communication.

4.)I do not mean to imply that online communities can not be rewarding.  As I said in an earlier blog posts, I feel that the more you put into a virtual community, the more you get out of it.  However, be fore fully immersing yourself in this virtual reality, it is important to note number one, what you are putting your time into, and number two, where this time is coming from.  As I have said above cyber-communities can be filled with dangers due to their lack of regulation and how difficult it is really know who you are talking too and what their motives are.  Also, it is important to remember the opportunity cost of virtual communities. The more time and effort you put into knowing people online, the less time you have to meet people in real life.

Potential Counter-Argument

Online people are not judged on their looks and are able to make meaningful connections without the risk of being judged based on their appearance.  I would respond that for people who are paranoid or extremely self conscious they may find this to be a better alternative than risk being judged, but it is important to remember the cost of such a choice.  Online relationships lack any kind of physical connection and it is this physical connection that cyber-communities greatly underestimate.  There is a reason that people shake hands when they meet each other and hug when they say goodbye.  That reason is the physical connection we all experience but underestimate.  Its like your health.  You truly don’t appreciate it until you are sick.  No matter what people say, we all want to hold hands, hug, or shake hands.  Physical contact is a way we remind ourselves that we are not alone.

I found the part of Birkerts article about Lambda MOO the most interesting part of the reading.  That section seemed a bit extreme to me for some reason.  I was taken aback by how different it was from social networking websites like facebook which are primarily used to maintain or strengthen preexisting relationships.  Rarely do people use facebook to meet more people online.  I have always been taught not to believe anything online unless you know its real.  It took me a very long time to trust websites like Amazon with my money, and even then I limit them considerably.  All purchases from amazon are made with gift cards I purchase in stores, same with iTunes.  No computer has ever received my debit card information with the exception of my actual bank, bank of america.  For me, there is such a jump with communities like Lambda MOO in that there is a lot more trust being given to computers.

There is also the big difference with the amount of time that people in communities like Lambda MOO are giving to computers, as well as how they are using that time.  I am for all intents and purposes a geek, nerd, whatever you want to call me.  I love math, science, and computers.  I am on the robocup team, have been programming for over three years, and use my laptops virtual world to keep track of my real one.  My computer is out more than it is not in my waking hours.  Time wise, I would be suprised if F is on her computer more than me. The difference is that when her computer is on, she is ON the computer.  She is actively participating in Lambda MOO.  She is building relationships and has “saved” herself.  My computer is used to enhance my life.  It plays music while I’m with friends.  It gives me up to date information on my activities so I know what my schedule will be like for the day.  It helps me type my homework, it helps me find information, and it helps me learn how to play the guitar.  The difference between F and myself is that the computer IS F’s life whereas my computer enhances my life.

It is because of this that I do not consider F truly saved.  I understand that she is happier.  I understand that she is more active on a computer than she would be watching TV, but Carters claim that “You actually get to know someone inside, without being judged on appearance” I found hard to believe.  I may be the strange one here, and maybe I’ll jump on the bandwagon in the near future, but people are not who they are in person the people that they are online.  The internet takes away inhibitions in a way that I would compare to alcohol.  Some people would say that is a good thing, that as a community we need to be more open and inviting.  I would argue we have those inhibitions for a reason.  We need a way to filter the people we do and do not trust.  As much as it hurts to admit it, there are bad people out there.  The few bad people out there are responsible for our societies need to be careful, but it is a trait we must keep lest we risk exposing ourselves to the imminent dangers of the world.  Until F can use her computer to get back out in the real world and socialize with people rather than their virtual selves, I won’t consider her healed.  This brings us back to our class’s first reading, The Machine Stops.  Can technology allow us to form and maintain meaningful relationships?  For me the answer is, and will remain, no.

Interesting quotes-

“Its like the internet has become a brain.”

“The web allows anyone to publish or distribute… virtually for free.”  They said that the web supercharges information, just as steam supercharged industry.  Can we really say that.  How is the internet supercharging information?  I see the internet as relocating information, making what was already out there available to more people.  In that way the web is exposing everyone connected to more and more information.  And as more people go online, the faster the information spreads.  Another key point is that sites like wikipedia allow information to spread from the bottom up.  Information is no longer handed to us by scholarly research, instead the majority rules.

Bill Gates saw the internet as a business opportunity rather than an opportunity for global equality.  He seems kind of like a jerk compared to people like Tim Berners-Lee…  Internet is a place for information to be shared, hippy kind of deal according to many people in the 80′s and early 90′s while Bill Gates was concerned about how its developers make a profit.

Talking about wikipedia, Jimmy Whales seemed to be scared about the term ‘elite’ which I found entertaining.  He doesn’t want people to recognize the power he has.  He doesn’t want to be recognized as an elite.  In a way, he appeared scared.